Bridges v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. Hon. W. D. Jackoway, Circuit Judge. Defendant was out on bail bond, conditioned as prescribed By sec. 1723 Gantt7s Dig., and failed to appear at any time in person. Bee. 1888 lb., provides that the “ trial77 may be had in the absence of defendant, but no. valid judgment (criminal) can be rendered against one who at no time has been personally present.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. Hon. W. D. Jackoway, Circuit Judge. Defendant was out on bail bond, conditioned as prescribed By sec. 1723 Gantt7s Dig., and failed to appear at any time in person. Bee. 1888 lb., provides that the “ trial77 may be had in the absence of defendant, but no. valid judgment (criminal) can be rendered against one who at no time has been personally present. Piad defendant entered his appearance and plea, as required by his bond, then the trial may have proceeded ulider said section. There is no such thing known to the criminal code as a judgment by default. The…
1Opinion of the CourtEnglish, C. J.
At the November term, 1880, of the Circuit Court of Franklin county, S. S. Bridges was indicted for selling liquor to a minor. A capias was issued to the •sheriff of Johnson county, who arrested defendant and delivered him into the custody of the sheriff of Franklin, and he released him on his executing a bail bond with sureties, for his appearance at the next term thereafter.
At the appearance term, the case was called for trial, and the defendant failed to appear. His attorneys asked to be allowed to enter a plea of not guilty for him, and that he be tried in his absence. This the court…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. SuperSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- Taylor v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1993
- Henderson v. Town of MurfreesboroSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Prine v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979