
    STATE v. CARL P. MATTSON.
    
    July 24, 1908.
    Nos. 15,729-(29).
    Criminal Proceedings — Appeal Rond.
    A loud on appeal, wliieli does not contain the condition that the defendant “abide the judgment of said court” to which the appeal was taken, fails to conform to the requirements of section 4018, R. L. 1905.
    Defendant having been convicted in the municipal court of Renville of the crime of aiming a pistol at Otto Smith, a fine of $25 and costs was imposed and it was ordered that in default of payment defendant be committed to the common jail until the fine was paid, but not to exceed thirty days. From this judgment, defendant appealed on questions of law alone to the district court of Renville county. In the district court the defendant moved to dismiss the action and the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal. The court, Powers, J., ruled that the motion to dismiss the appeal took precedence of the prior motion of defendant and must be granted, and judgment of dismissal was entered. From the orders and judgment of dismissal, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      John J. Schoregge, for appellant.
    
      B. T. Young, Attorney General, and Frank Murray, County Attorney, for the state.
    
      
      
         Reported In 117 N. W. 503.
    
   JAGG ARE, J.

The defendant, arrested on a warrant issued by the municipal court of the city of Renville, was found guilty and fined. Thereafter defendant filed a bond and recognizance on appeal, with due notice of appeal. The district court granted a motion of the state to dismiss the appeal because of the insufficiency of the bond.

The bond was conditioned that if the defendant should personally appear and prosecute the appeal with effect at a named term of the district court, to answer said appeal, and in the meantime to keep the peace, and not to depart thence without leave duly granted, etc. This bond did not contain the requirement of section 4018, R. L. 1905, that the defendant abide the judgment of the court to which the appeal was taken. This defect was substantial and material.

The other questions raised on appeal were determined adversely to the defendant in State v. Mattson, supra, page 63, 117 N. W. 227.

Affirmed.  