Jones v. State
Jones v. State
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff in error and another were sureties for one Sweeney on an appearance bond which required the appearance of Sweeney before the County
The record contains an indictment against Sweeney, charging him with the theft of one case knife and fork of the value of fifty cents each, and one mustard cruet of the value of fifty cents, the property of one Lidke; which indictment was filed in the District Court, January 7, 1879, but which was not filed in the County Court until January 31, 1879.
There being no indictment filed in the County Court at the first term of that court, and the defendant having given the bond before indictment found, it was the duty of the prosecuting attorney, if he desired to hold the person accused beyond the first term of the court, to have shown good cause, supported by affidavit as required by article 592, Code of Procedure; otherwise the defendant and his sureties were entitled to be discharged, under subdivision 4 of article 452, Code Crim. Procedure. If the county attorney had intended to prosecute the principal in the bond, for the offense charged in the indictment, he could have proceeded on information, it being but a petty theft. If he chose to proceed by indictment, then he should have made the proper showing to hold the defendant to await the presentation of an indictment, or have caused the indictment to have been filed in the County Court at the first term of the County Court after the appearance bond had been given. Neither of these courses having been pursued, the sureties were exonerated from liability by the failure to present an indictment or an information at the first term of the County Court.
Reversed and dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.