County of Los Angeles v. Schaffner

HAHN, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff rendered in an action to recover on a hail bond. The case comes up on the judgment-roll alone.

It appears from the complaint that one Dan Dubreville was arraigned on a charge of violation of the Wright Act [Stats. 1921, p. 79], He waived preliminary examination and was bound over for trial to the superior court, at

[386]

which time the committing magistrate fixed his bond at one thousand dollars. The defendants qualified as sureties on this bond, and Dubreville was released from custody-pending trial. The bail bond in this action is in the usual form, the sureties undertaking that Dubreville would hold himself amenable to the orders and process of the court, etc.

It further appears from the complaint that after his release the district attorney of Los Angeles County on October 5, 1923, filed in the superior court an information charging him with the offense for which he was bound over. The complaint further alleges that on October 8, 1923, the case of

People of the State of California, Plaintiff,

v.

Dan Dubreville, Defendant,

being No. 20877, was duly and regularly called in Department 12 of the superior court for the arraignment of the defendant, and that at the said time and place the defendant did not appear and was not present; that the court duly and regularly continued said cause for arraignment until the fifteenth day of October, 1923, and that on said date the case was again called for arraignment, and that at the said time and place the said defendant did not appear and was not present to answer said charge pending against him and did not render himself amenable to the orders and process of said court; that thereupon the court ordered the bail of said defendant forfeited, and that such order was duly entered in the minutes, and that such order of forfeiture has not been set aside.

The amended answer filed by the defendants admits the execution of the bond, but denies that Dubreville did not render himself amenable to the order and process of the court. The amended answer contains the further allegation that on the occasions when the case in question was called for arraignment, namely, on October 8, 1923, and October 15, 1923, the defendant Dubreville was “present by counsel, ready and willing to proceed with such arraignment, and present to answer said charge . . . , and to abide the order and process of the court.” The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for.