J. F. Collins v. State

Citations

• 16 Tex. Ct. App. 274
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 106

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Judgment—Amendment.—A trial court has the authority to amend a judgment after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, in order to correct clerical errors or mistakes, or to add an omitted clause necessary to give it effect, when there is anything in the judgment by which to amend. Under this rule, as laid down in this State and supported by elementary authority, the trial court, in a proceeding on a forfeited appeal bond, was authorized to amend the judgment nisi by inserting the omitted words,' “the judgment will be,made final unless good cause be shown at the next term of the court why the defendant did not appear.” See the opinion in extenso.on the subject.</p> <p>2. Sakie—Notice.—Articles 1354 and 1355 of the Revised Statutes require that notice be given to the parties interested in a judgment or decree before any correction of mistakes or .misrecitals in the judgment can be made by amendment. Judgment nisi is the foundation of scire facias proceedings on a forfeited bail bond. To that judgment the principal in the bail bond is a direct party in interest, and, by reason thereof, becomes a necessary party to a proceeding to amend the judgment nisi, even . though he. was not made a party in-the scire-facias ...........</p> <p>3. Bail Bond—Practice—Variance.—Under the Revised Code, the generic term “horse” embraces all amimals of the horse kind. The indictment charged the offense of stealing “one horse.” The bond described the offense as the theft of “ one sorrel mare.” He Id, that the descriptions were not variant.</p> <p>4 Same—Alteration.—In the original bond, sent up for inspection, the name of a surety had been erased by ink lines drawn across it, so as to obliterate it. It was objected, to the competency of the bond as evidence, that it first devolved upon the State to satisfactorily explain the erasure, and show that it was made under circumstances that did not affect the rights of the obligors. Held, that the objection was well t