
    WILLIAMSON et al. v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 30, 1912.)
    Bah, ,(§ 76) — Extent •oi' Liability — Defenses — Exoneration.
    Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 500, provides that certain named causes will exonerate defendant and his sureties from liability upon a forfeited bail bond. Article 501 provides that when no sufficient cause is shown for accused’s failure to appear judgment on the appeal bond shall be made final against him and his sureties ; and article 503 provides that if, before final judgment, the principal shall appear or be arrested, the court may, in its discretion, remit the amount specified in the bond, field that, where accused, though without his sureties’ fault, purposely left the county seat and hid, to avoid arrest, until after the term had adjourned, there was no abuse of discretion in rendering judgment against the sureties on his bail bond for the full amount of the bond; no facts being shown which would exonerate them.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 322-327; Dee. Dig. § 76.]
    Appeal, from District Court, Cass County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
    Action by the State of Texas against Am-brose Williamson and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    O’Neal & Figures, of Atlanta, for appellants. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBBR in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

The record in this case shows that Ambrose Williamson, prior to September 2, 1911, had been indicted by the grand jury of Cass county for a felony, and that upon his arrest he ’gaive a proper bail bond with J. A. Williamson and T. N. Golden, appellants herein, as sureties for his proper appearance at the next term of the district court of said county; that he did not so appear when his case was called for trial on September 7, 1911, and that thereupon forfeiture nisi of said bond was had and entered; that the proper citation was issued and served, and that the defendants duly appeared and answered therein, and on February 27, 1912, the court heard all the evidence and made the nisi judgment final for the full amount of said bond, $500, and all costs.

The evidence was heard on this final trial, when this final judgment was rendered and entered; and it is shown that in a trial before the court without a jury the appellant Ambrose Williamson first attended the term of said court, and was so in attendance “right up to a few moments before it was called for trial and the forfeiture taken”; that he had some process issued for witnesses before then, and either they had not been served, or were not in attendance; that he had gone to the sheriff several times about it, and the sheriff told him he would do his very best to get his witnesses, but that he had so much work to do that his-deputies were all out Thereupon, when the case was about to be called and his witnesses-still absent, and fearing that the court would not postpone or continue his case, he left the court and county seat, not going to his home, where he lived with his father, but to a different place, at his uncle’s, and stayed there, and later went on home and had his-father to notify the sheriff that he wished to surrender and make a new bond, which he afterwards did. The sheriff testified that the-appellant Ambrose Williamson had been in attendance upon the court until a few minutes before his case was called for trial, and when called and the forfeiture taken a. warrant was issued for his rearrest, but that' he was unable to find him until after the adjournment of the court, which ended the-latter part of September, 1911.

It was shown that one of the sureties, Golden — the other surety, J. A. Williamson,, being the fatner of the appellant Ambrose— a few days after the forfeiture, went to seethe sheriff and wanted Ambrose rearrested,, and offered to put up $50 to assist in bringing about his arrest. The sheriff told him not to offer a reward for the arrest of the appellant Ambrose Williamson; that it might scare him out of the country; and it seems-thereupon no reward was offered for his rearrest. After the adjournment of the court, for that term, the sheriff was informed, through the other surety, the appellant Am-brose Williamson’s father, that Ambrose was-then at home and would make a new bond, which he did, and that afterwards he stood, a trial and was convicted of the said felony charge against him, and was, at the time-this final hearing was had upon the final forfeiture, in the sheriff’s custody and in. jail, pending the motion for new trial in that case. The sureties testified that they were-in no way responsible for the defendant’s failure to appear in accordance with said bond. He did not make the new bail bond until November 24, 1911. Mr. Golden, one off the sureties, testified that he proposed to the-sheriff to offer a reward of $50 for the rearrest of the appellant when he first learned: of the forfeiture some two. or three days thereafter, but the sheriff advised him not to do this, and that, he afterwards put up-' $20 with another officer to secure the rearrest of the defendant, and that he continued, his efforts to have him rearrested up to the time he surrendered and made his new bond on November 24, 1911. What efforts the-suxeties made is not further shown. Neither is it shown that the surety Golden was out ultimately his $20. He simply testified that he put it up with another officer. It seems that the appellant was not rearrested by any officer, but that he merely notified the officer that he had returned to his home, and was ready and willing to make a new bail bond, wbicb be did.

Appellant contends that the facts above ■stated were a defense to the forfeiture, and the court abused his discretion in not setting aside the nisi forfeiture and in rendering a .judgment final on the bond.

This is a companion case to Henry Johnson et al. v. State, 150 S. W. 890, this day affirmed, and what is said therein of the law applicable thereto is also applicable here.

Article 500, <3. O. P., sets out specifically the causes that will exonerate the defendant and his sureties from liability upon such forfeiture as is shown in this ease and says that those “and no other” will exonerate him. This case clearly does not come within any of those causes which the law says, “and no other” will exonerate them. Then article 501, C. C. P., prescribes that when, upon the trial of such a case, no sufficient ■cause is shown for the failure of the principal to appear the judgment shall be made final against him and his sureties for the amount in which they are respectively bound. It is true that article 503, C. C. P., prescribes that if, before final judgment is entered, the principal appear or be arrested and lodged in the jiyi of the proper county the court may, in its discretion, remit the whole or part of the sum specified in the bond. These statutory provisions leave the matter discretionary with the lower court, and not with this. The record, as shown above, shows that, while the sureties may not have been at fault for the appellant not being present when his ease was called for trial, it also shows that he voluntarily and purposely left the court and the county seat and hid out to prevent his case from being tried, and that he did not let his whereabouts be known, and avoided arrest until after the term of court, where he was bound to appear, had adjourned. It is no defense in a case of this kind for the sureties to show that they were not at fault and had nothing to do with the appellant purposely and willfully escaping and not complying with the provisions of the bond. If that were true, bail bonds would be a farce, and none of them could ever be collected, and an accused person could, from term to term, make and forfeit his bond and prevent a trial, and his ■sureties would incur no liability. It is true the law does not seek to punish the sureties. But when they go on such bonds it is contemplated that if the accused does not comply therewith, and purposely and willfully forfeits the same, that they shall pay the amount, unless, in the discretion of the lower court, a part or all of it is remitted. State v. Warren, 17 Tex. 283; Haverty v. State, 32 Tex. 602; Barton v. State, 24 Tex. 250; Lee v. State, 25 Tex. App. 331, 8 S. W. 277.

We cannot say in this case that the court below abused its discretion in rendering the judgment for the full amount in this case; and it is affirmed.  