Barrera's Sureties v. State

Citations

• 32 Tex. 644

Syllabus

<p>1— A hail bond, which was taken before indictment, and which in the recital; part designates the charge against the prisoner as an “ assault with intent to murder,” and in the subsequent part of the condition as an “assault with intent to kill,” sufficiently describes an offense against the laws of this State, to-wit: the offense of “ assault.” The superadded words, “ with intent,” etc., may he regarded as surplusage, and do not vitiate the bond; nor will such a hail bond be held invalid because the prisoner, after giving the bail, was indicted, not for a simple assault, but for an assault with intent to kill and murder,</p> <p>2— The rulings in Foster v. The State (27 Tex., 236), requiring the description of the offense in a bail bond to correspond exactly with that charged in the indictment, must be understood as applicable and limited to bail bonds and recognizances taken after indictment found.</p> <p>3— In bail bonds or recognizances taken before indictment found, all that should be required in this respect is, that they describe in plain language some offense known to the law.</p> <p>4— The fact that no forfeiture was taken on a bail bond at the first term when default was made is a circumstance of no legal consequence, and can not. in any way avail the obligors in the bond.</p> <p>5— Scire facias on a forfeited bail bond or recognizance is not in any sense a criminal proceeding; it is to all intents a civil suit.</p>