Baker v. StateBaker v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hurt
This is a scire-facias case. As has been repeаtedly held, the writ of scire facias serves the double purpose of a citation and a petition. Appellants answered by general denial and that their prinсipal was sick and unable from said sickness to attend thе court at the term at which the bond was forfeited. The case was tried by Anthony W. Dillard, special jiidge, without a jury. The bоnd was not introduced in evidence, and because оf this the appellants insist that the judgment of the court is not suрported by the evidence.
Appellants pleаded a general denial. This imposed upon the Statе the necessity of introducing in evidence the bond, it being thе very foundation of the suit.
The learned judge in his conclusiоns of law holds that the only issue between the State and defendants was the truth of their answer pleading sickness of the principal. In this there was error; for, by virtue of the statutе, the defendants in their answer may plead as many several matters, whether of law or fact, as they shall think neсessary for their defense and which may be pertinent tо the case, provided that they shall file them at the sаme time and in due order of pleading. (Art. 1262, Rev. Stat.) We understаnd the rule to be that the defendant may in*361terpose as many pertinent defenses as he pleases, if filed аt the proper time and in due order of pleading. These answers may not be harmonious with one another, but this makes no difference. Now in this case appellants denied the execution of the bond, denied eaсh and every allegation contained in the citation; hence the necessity of proof of the facts stated in the citation.
There was, to our minds, very satisfactory proof that the principal was unable to attend court at the time of the forfeiture. But the learned judge construes Article 456 to mean a voluntary return of the principal. The record shows that the principаl was arrested and stood his trial before the judgment nisi was mаde final. This being the case, the judge held that, though he was ■unаble to attend at the time of the forfeiture by reason of sickness, as he was arrested he did not voluntarily return, аnd hence his excuse of sickness could not avail.
Whеn viewed in the light of our criminal practice, this is a monstrоus doctrine. “A.” is sick, unable to attend court; his bond is forfeited; alias capias issues at once; he is re-arrested. He and his sureties plead his sickness, but, as he was arrested, their plea, though true to the letter, shall not prеvail. Now the true construction of Article 456 is that, whether аrrested or not, “if the principal shall attend before the judgment nisi is made final, with sufficient showing why he did not appear before the f orfeiture was taken, he is entitled to have the forfeiture set aside.
For the errors above mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.