Sims v. StateSims v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Davids
Appeal from judgment on forfeited bail bond. Sam Sims entered into bond with I. H. Kelson and Billy Brown as sureties. This bond bore date June 20, 1896. At the September term, 1896, of the District Court, Sims madе default. His bond was forfeited, judgment nisi entered, and scire facias issued to the sureties. The judgment nisi and scire facias recited the date of the bond as June 30, 1896. Wоodruff & McCauley, attorneys for Sam Sims and the sureties, filеd exceptions, etc., to the State’s motion tо amend the judgment nisi and scire facias. This occurred at the subsequent March term. Exceptions were overruled, and the judgment and scire facias amended so as to conform to the date of the bond. Kоw, the point relied upon here for reversal is thаt it was necessary to serve defendant Sims, the principal in the bond, with notice of the intention to amеnd the bond and scire facias. The Collins case, 16 Texas Criminal Appeals, 274, would seem to sustain this proрosition. The Hutchings case, 24 Texas Criminal Appeаls, 242, in our opinion, in effect overruled the Collins case, though the opinion in the Hutchings case draws a distinction between that case and the Collins casе. If it were necessary to go into a discussion of that question, we would here apply the rule laid down in thе Hutchings case. Article 478, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that it is not necessary to serve notice of the forfeiting of the bond upon the principal. If it is not necessary to •serve notice upon him as to the forfeiture, it is not, therefore, necessary for him to be served with notice of subsequent prоceedings, and the State can secure a judgmеnt without notice to him. We are, perhaps, relieved of a further investigation of that subject by reason of the fact that Sims, the principal in the bond, answered through his attorneys, and contested the State in sеcuring the amendment of the judgment nisi and scire faciаs.. He had a right to appear by counsel, and, hаving done so, he was bound by their action. For the reasons above stated, the objections of aрpellant to the introduction of the ■amended judgmеnt nisi and scire facias are not well taken.
Apрellants objected to the introduction of the indiсtment in evi *442 dence, because it did not show that it was fоr the same offense as that for which appеllant was tried before Justice of the Peace Strayhorn, sitting as an examining court. It is not necessary thе indictment should show on its face that the principal was indicted for the offense tried by the examining court. There is nothing in the bill to show it was not the same offense. It is simply stated as a ground of objection1 to the introduction of the indictment. As set up in the bill of exceptions, there is no merit in this objection. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.