Slocumb v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Bastrop. A. W. Winn was indicted, Fall Term, 1851, for assault and battery. Process was issued 30th December, 1851, and returned “ Came to hand same day issued, and “ executed the same, serving the within capias on said Winn “ and taking his bond for his appearance at the next Term of “the District Court.” Then followed a bond by Winn, as principal, and the plaintiffs in error, as sureties, for Winn’s appearance, as aforesaid.
Read the full summary
Error from Bastrop. A. W. Winn was indicted, Fall Term, 1851, for assault and battery. Process was issued 30th December, 1851, and returned “ Came to hand same day issued, and “ executed the same, serving the within capias on said Winn “ and taking his bond for his appearance at the next Term of “the District Court.” Then followed a bond by Winn, as principal, and the plaintiffs in error, as sureties, for Winn’s appearance, as aforesaid. The bond was dated same day the writ issued; was indorsed “ approved the 30th December, 1851, John ITearn, Sheriff B. C.and was also indorsed “ Filed nunc…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
This is a judgment, on a bond taken by the Sheriff by virtue of Article 2889. It is assigned
1st. That the bond was not certified and returned to the District Court as the law directs.
2nd. That it was not filed by the Clerk the day it came to his hands, but was erroneously ordered by the Court to be filed “ nunc pro tunc.”
3rd. That judgment was improperly rendered against plaintiffs, who were securities in the bond, after an alias capias had been ordered to issue against Winn, the principal.
There is nothing substantial in any of these grounds. The statute requires the bond to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Haverty v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1870
- Whitman Agricultural Co. v. VossCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1885