121 P. 792 | Okla. Crim. App. | 1912
The Attorney General has filed the following confession of error in this case:
"The effect of the judgment of the court is to hold that it has power to pass upon the sufficiency of an appeal bond, when this power is lodged in the first place in the hands of the police *42
judge. The bond given was effective as an appeal bond, possibly subject to the right of the county court to require a new bond, if the judge for any sufficient reason deemed the appeal bond unsatisfactory. But to treat the bond, after it had been approved by the police judge, as a fatal defect, and to dismiss the appeal for the reason of its insufficiency, would be a denial of the right by trial by jury, in a matter affecting the liberty of an individual. This matter is fully discussed in Re Simmons,
We think that the position assumed by the Attorney General is correct. If for any reason the appeal bond was not sufficient, upon motion of the county attorney, the court might have required the defendant to execute a good and sufficient bond, and in case of his failing to do this he might be confined in jail pending the appeal. But the court did not have the power to dismiss the appeal on account of any real or supposed defects in the bond. The judgment of the county court is therefore reversed, with directions to reinstate this cause upon its docket and proceed with this case as above indicated. Reversed.
ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur. *43