County of Los Angeles v. Grannis

HAHN, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in an action on a bail bond. The case comes here upon the judgment-roll alone.

[389]

It appears from the complaint that on August 20, 1923, the defendant H. S. Leonard, who was charged with the offense of forgery and in custody, appeared in the justice court of Los Angeles township for arraignment for the purpose of preliminary examination. At said time and place, the preliminary examination was set for August 29, 1923. On August 21, 1923, the justice of the peace before whom the arraignment was to take place fixed a bond for the defendant in the sum of $2,000, and that both of the defendants in this action executed said bond and qualified thereon as sureties. Upon the filing of the bond the defendant Leonard was released from custody. On August 29,1923, the date upon which the preliminary examination was to take place, the court duly and regularly continued the hearing of the preliminary examination to September 4, 1923, at which time and place the preliminary examination was again “duly and regularly continued” until September 5, 1923. On September 5, 1923, when the ease was called for preliminary examination, the said defendant did not appear and was not present to answer the charge pending against him and he did not render himself amenable to the" orders and process of the court; that thereupon the court declared the bail forfeited and entered such order in the minutes of the court.

The answer does not deny the execution of the bond by the defendants, but does deny all of the other allegations of the complaint and in addition set forth, under what is designated as a separate and distinct defense, allegations that on August 29th, the defendant Leonard was in court, but that on September 4, 1923, to which date the preliminary examination was continued, the defendant Leonard was not personally present in court, but that notwithstanding his absence the court continued the hearing until 2 o’clock of the afternoon of that date, at which time the defendant again was absent, and the court continued the hearing until September 5th, at 2 o’clock P. M.; that on September 5th, the defendant, still not appearing, the bail was forfeited. The answer furthermore alleges that there was a stipulation whereby the forfeiture was stayed for some thirty days, but we do not consider this a matter of importance in the case.