Laws

Where a recognizance was taken Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:18:19 +0000
Urton v State, 37 Ind 339 Ver Mont The original recognizance is not required to be returned to the court before which the accused is to appear; but it is sufficient for the mag- istrate to return a copy thereof State Treasurer v Pierce, 2 d Chi P ( Vt) 106 3 State v Perry, 28 Min N 455 A recognizance should be returned by the magistrate who takes it to the court to which it is returnable, and a neglect to so return it at or before the first day of the term of the court, ren- ders the magistrate liable to a fin e Ex p Neal, 14 Mas S 205 4 Mendocino County v Lamar, 30 Ca L 629; State v Crippen, i Ohio St 401; People v Van Eps, 4 Wen d ( N Y) 390; People v Huggins, 10 Wen d ( N Y) 464; People v Kane, 4 De N ( N Y) 535; Respublica v Cobbet, 3 Dal L (U S)467; State v Walker, 56 N H 176; King v State, 18 Neb 375; Bridge v Ford, 4 Mas S 641; State v Smith, 2 Me 62 A recognizance is not of record un- less there be a memorandum of its return entered on the minute-book of the court. Sargeant v State, 16 Ohio 267 Memorandum Insufficient. Where a recognizance was taken by a Court of Oyer and Terminer for the ap- pearance of the accused at several ses- sions, it was held there should be an entry in the minutes of the court where the recognizance was taken, containing the substance thereof, and that a mere memorandum to the effect that a re- cognizance was taken was not suffi- cient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Harris v State, 54 Ind Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:01:53 +0000
People v Graham, i P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 141 re execution, but must be properly filed and recorded in order to become suc H 1 C CONSTRUCTIO N A recognizance will be so construed, if pos- sible, as to have it answer the purpose for which it was give N 2 But the omission of material words cannot be supplied by in- ference or intendment, 3 nor is oral evidence admissible to supply essential defect S 4 It may in some cases be aided by presump- tion, 5 and defects therein may be cured by the express or implied consent of the parties acting as a waiver thereof 6 Preliminary Examinatio N A recog- nizance given for the appearance of the accused at a preliminary examina- tion need not be entered in the records of the justic e Haney v People, 12 Colo345 1 People -v Kane, 4 De N ( N Y) 535; People v Van Eps, 4 Wen d ( N Y) 387; People v Huggins, 10 Wen d ( N Y) 464; Bridge v Ford, 4 Mas S 641; State v Smith, 2 Me 62 In Nebraska, by a statute, a recogni- zance taken by a justice of the peace as an examining magistrate becomes of record when returned by the justice to a clerk of the District Court and by him entered of recor d King v State, 18 Neb 375 2 State v Wellman, 3 Ohio 14; Smith v State, 36 Tex 317; Hendee v Taylor, 29 Con N 448 See also People v Love, 19Cal677 A recognizance is similar to an obli- gation by bond, and is subject to the same rules of constructio N Cunning- ham v State, 14 Mo 402 Words which are clearly absurd and repugnant to the purpose of the in- strument are to be rejected; thus, where the words in a recognizance, " that it was to be void if default was made in the condition," were absurd and repugnant to the concluding de- feasance, "that if the condition was performed the recognizance was to be void, else to remain in full force " the former were rejecte d M'Carty v Stat e I Blackf (Ind) 338 3 Carroll v State, 6 Tex App 463; Gary v State, n Tex App 527 Where there is a material mistake in a recognizance it cannot be cor- rected in equit Y State v Loeb, 21 La An N 599; Wallen v State, 18 Tex App 414- Alteratio N If a recognizance be altered in a material respect without the consent of the sureties, it is thereby rendered invali d A change in the term at which the accused is to appear is material and avoids it. Heath v State, 14 Tex App 213 But an im- material alteration does not vitiate it. Harris v State, 54 Ind 2 4 Nicholson v State, 2 Ga 363 A recognizance is void if it does not specify the charge on which the ac- cused is held; and this defect cannot by supplied by oral evidenc e People v Gillman (Supreme Ct), 12 N Y Supp 40; Nicholson v State, 2 Ga 363 5 It is presumed that a charge was properly made and investigated, and a correct decision reached, before a recognizance was acknowledged and executed, where it appears that such recognizance was properly filed and the accused released on it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

The court has power Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:46:12 +0000
M'Carty v State, i Blackf (Ind) 338; People v Blankman, 17 Wen d ( N Y) 252; Shattuck -v People, 5 111 477; Red- mond v State, 12 Ka N 172 Where the record of a recognizance recites, "taken and acknowledged be- fore me, A B, clerk," it will be pre- sumed to have been taken before the court if the court was sitting during the time it was take N Bodine v Co M, 24 Pa St 69 Where a recognizance required the accused to appear and answer an in-- dictment for adultery, and a certain kind of adulterous intercourse is an indictable offense, it will be presumed it was intended to charge the accused with the statutory offens e Besimer v People, 15 111 439 6 Allen v Kellam, 94 Pa St 253 Where a recognizance is voluntari- ly given and the accused released thereon, this operates as a waiver of objections to its form and to the juris- diction of the magistrate to take it. Clark v Gordon, 82 Ga 613; Jones v Gordon, 82 Ga 570 A person accused of an offense waives the question of the authority of the officer who arrested him to da d AMENDMENT. The court has power to amend a recogni- zance so as to make it express more accurately the contract made by the partie S 1 Such amendment, it has been held, may be made after it has become a record of the court and action has been commenced on it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 It must properly name Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:26:16 +0000
3 e OF PROSECUTOR AND WITNESSE S In England and some of the United States the prosecutor of a criminal charge, and the witnesses who appear on the examination thereof, may be bound by recognizance to appear at the trial of the accused thereo N 3 / To KEEP THE PEAC e The power to hold to bail to keep the peace existed at common law in England and has been consid- ered part of the common law of this countr Y 4 Its exercise is gen- erally regulated by statut e 5 Any justice of the peace or court of record generally has such poweR6 Bail to keep the peace may be required, not only in cases of threatened breach of the peace, but also after conviction and, in extraordinary cases, even after ac- quitta L 7 Application to hold to bail to keep the peace is' a criminal proceedin g 8 See article BREACH OF THE PEAC e so, by voluntarily entering into a recognizance before a court of general jurisdictio N State v Wenzel, 77 Ind 428 1 State v Young, 56 Me 219; In- galls v Chase, 68 Me 113; Wright v Blunt, 74 Me 92; Co M v Field, II Allen (Mas S) 488; Co M v Cheney, 108 Mas S 33; Hosie v Gray, 73 Pa St 502 2 Co M v Cheney, 108 Mas S 33; State v Young, 56 Me 219 The prothonotary of the court may amend a defective recognizanc e Hosie v Gray, 73 Pa St 502 After Adjournment of the Term at which it was entered a recognizance cannot be amende d Simpson v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 425; Miller v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 26 S W Rep 71 3 Bennet v Watson, 3 M S i; Evans v Rees, 12 A d E d 55, 40 E C L 23' People v Millis, 5 Barb ( N Y) 511;' People v Rundle, 6 Hill ( N Y) 506; Foat v State, 28 Tex App 527- For M A recognizance for the ap- pearance of a witness should acknowl- edge indebtedness to the people and state the offense with which the ac- cused is charge d People v Rundle, 6 Hill ( N Y) 506 After Adjournment. Where a stat- ute provides that, upon the examina- tion before a magistrate of a person accused of crime, witnesses may be re- quired by the magistrate to give bail for their appearance held, that a wit- ness bail bond not executed until four days after an examination had con- cluded and the court had adjourned (no order requiring such a bond hav- ing been entered of record by the magistrate) was voi d Foat v State, 28 Tex App 527 4 State v Maxcy, i McMul L ( S Car) 501; Blackstone Co M, b K 4, C 18 5 People v Gray, 4 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 616; Roberts v State, 14 Mo 138; People v Phillips, I P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 95; Shanley v Wells, 7r 111 78; State v Maxcy, i McMul L ( S Car) 501 6 State v Maxcy, i McMul L ( S Car) 501; Estes v State, 2 Humph (Tenn) 496 7 Lord Aylesbury's Case, i Sal K 103; Harvey's Case, 10 Mo d 334; U S v Jones, 3 Wash (U S) 224; Estes v State, 2 Humph (Tenn) 496 8 Adams v Ashby, 2 Bibb (Ky) 96 Complaint Necessar Y In order to warrant the holding of a person to bail to keep the peace, there should be a complaint made in writing as well as an examination by the magis- trate; but a commitment need not state that such complaint was made; it is sufficient if it merely states that the commitment was for failure to furnish sureties as required by the magis- trat e Bradstreet v Furgeson, 23 Wen d ( N Y)638 g ON APPEAL Requisite S A recognizance given on appeal from a conviction in a criminal matter must require the accused to abide the judgment of the appellate court. 1 It must properly name or describe the appellate court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Douglass v State (Tex Cri Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:10:03 +0000
2 It must require the ac- cused to appear before the appellate court from term to ter M 3 Cannot Controvert. Where articles of the peace are exhibited against a person, he cannot controvert the truth of the allegations contained therei N King v Doherty, 13 East 171 Time must be Definit e A person required to give a recognizance to keep the peace can only be required to bind himself to keep the peace for a definite time; and where one accused was required to give a recognizance to keep the peace for an indefinite time held, that this was beyond the power of the magistrate, and a com- mitment for failure to give it was illega L Prickett v Gratrex, 8 QB 1021, 55 E C L 1021 Conform to Statut e Where a person is required to give security to be of good behavior or to stand committed, and, to secure his release, he gives a recognizance containing material and onerous conditions not authorized by statute, such recognizance is invali d Durein v State, 38 Ka N 485 A condition in a recognizance not to gamble for twelve months was bad; it should have been for the good be- havior of the accused generall Y Estes v State, 2 Humph (Tenn) 496 Discharg e Where a person is bound over to keep the peace, etc, if no in- dictment be found against him or proper continuance of the proceedings had, it operates as a discontinuance of the proceedings, and the person ac- cused is discharged thereb Y Good- win v Governor, i Stew p (Ala) 1 Horton v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 23 S W Rep 691; Sides v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 95; Farmer v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 23 S W Rep 795; Knight v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 103; Lourance -v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 297; Pollard v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep, 285; Crawford v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 629; Anderson v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 289; Barnard v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 967; Crise v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 285 Where a recognizance on appeal in a criminal case binds the accused not to depart without leave, in order to abide the judgment of the court of the state wherein it is taken, it is fatally defec- tive if it does not specifically bind him to abide the judgment of any particular court. Douglass v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 43 It is void if it requires appearance before the wrong appellate court, Palvadore v State, 12 Tex 230; Manes v State, 20 Tex 38; or, if there was no juris- diction to require a recognizance, Co M v Collins, n Gray (Mas S) 465, where a magistrate, having power only to bind over, took a recogni- zance "to appear and prosecute his appea L" See also Ex p Bell, 56 Mis S 282 But if one who has been convicted before a magistrate of a criminal of- fense is, on his appeal, required to enter into a recognizance which is il- legal, this does not deprive the Su- perior Court of jurisdiction of the case, if the defendant is personally brought into court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

It need not be signed Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:52:16 +0000
Co M v Leigh- ton, 7 Allen (Mas S) 528 2 Garza v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 139; Curry v Dallas (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 930; Neubaner v State, 31 Tex Cri M Rep 513; Kaiser v Dallas (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 767; Cummings v State, 31 Tex Cri M Rep 406 3 Howard v State, 30 Tex App 680; Barela v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 26 S W Rep 397; Spencer v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 27 Time to Ti Me In Texas a recog- nizance requiring appearance before the trial court from time to time, in- stead of from term to term, is invali d Forbes v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 1072 Must Require Appearanc e If a re- cognizance on appeal does not bind the accused to appear before any court it is fatally defectiv e Harris It should recite the conviction or result in the lower court. 1 It should acknowledge indebtedness to the state and describe the offense with which the accused is charge d 2 -v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 103; Howard v State, 30 Tex App 680 A recognizance given on appeal from a conviction, and conditioned for the appearance of the accused before the court from day to day and term to term, and not to depart without leave, in order to abide the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the state of Texas in his cause, etc, was held to be good and vali d Zidek v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep A recognizance on appeal in a criminal case is not defective if it states before what court the accused is to appear, and shows that the officer who took it was authorized to do so; and where it binds the accused to appear at the next term of the District Court, and to abide the judgment of the court and not depart without leave of the court, it is suffi- cient. It need not be signed; but if signed, this does not invalidate it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

A recognizance on appeal must Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:41:46 +0000
Shupe v State, 40 Neb 524 When Jurisdiction must be Show N In a recognizance taken by a justice of the peace for the prosecution of an appeal to the District Court.it is neces- sary that his jurisdiction shall appear in the proceedings, which does not ap- pear if the recognizance fails to show in what county the supposed offense was committe d State v Magrath, 31 Me 469 The Conrt Instead of This Court. A recognizance on appeal must bind the accused to appear before the trial court; and where, in describing it, the words "the court" instead of "this court " are used, it is invali d Howard v State, 30 Tex App 680; Harris v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 290 1 Fancher v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 285; Sides v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 95 2 Horton v State, 30 Tex 191; Bennett v State, 30 Tex 446; Tierney -v State, 31 Tex 40 Must be Offense against La W A re- cognizance on appeal from conviction must describe the offense charged, and it must appear from it that it is an offense against the laws of the state, or it is invali d Payne v State, 30 Tex 397; Bennett v State, 30 Tex 446; Horton v State, 30 Tex 191; Ko- ritz v State, 27 Tex App 53 Signin g A recognizance on appeal from conviction must be signed by the accused and his suretie S Tierney v State, 31 Tex 40 Contra, Shupe v State, 40 Neb 524 Taken on Sunday, Voi d A recogni- zance was held void where it was taken on Sunday, it being given to prosecute an appeal in a criminal cas e State -v Suhur, 33 Me 539 Judgment Appealed from Voi d Where a judgment appealed from is void, a recognizance given on appeal there- from is invalid and cannot be enforced on the ground that it was voluntarily give N People v Carroll, 44 Mich 371- Substantial Complianc e Where a re- cognizance complies substantially with the statute under which it is given it should be held sufficient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Where a recognizance on appeal Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:27:23 +0000
Hence where, on appeal from a con- viction imposing a fine for selling liquor without a license, a bond was given conditioned "that if he should prosecute his appeal to effect and pay the judgment rendered against him, then the obligation should be void," it was held sufficient, although not ex- actly in the statutory form, and it was error to dismiss the appeal for alleged insufficiency of the bon d Vierling v State, 33 Ind 218 A recognizance given on appeal from a conviction in a criminal matter, and conditioned for the appearance of the accused before the trial court at a time specified, and from time to time as the court should direct, and also for his appearance before the appel- late court at a time specified, and from time to time, as the said court should direct, to answer, do, and re- ceive what the said court should re- quire concerning the indictment against him, and not to depart without leave held, a proper recognizanc e People v Vermilyea, 7 Co W ( N Y) 141 Joint or Severa L A recognizance on appeal from conviction which binds the principal and sureties jointly is Forfeitur e Such a recognizance may be forfeited on the failure of the accused to comply with the conditions therei N 1 9 Forfeiture A POWEROnly a court which has power to require the accused to answer the charge against him has power to forfeit his recognizanc e* Such forfeiture must be declared valid and sufficient, although the stat- ute provides that they shall be bound separatel Y Rainbalt v State, 34 Tex 286 Must be Recognizanc e Where a statute provided that one convicted could appeal therefrom on giving a recognizance within a specified time held, that the right to appeal depended on the giving of a recognizance within such time, and that remaining in cus- tody was not equivalent to the giving of the recognizance require d Co M v Brigham, 16 Pic K (Mas S) 10 1 State v Nichols, 43 Vt 91 Nonappearance in Appellate Court. A recognizance given on appeal from a conviction, and conditioned for the ap- pearance of the accused at a specified term of the appellate court, and in the Circuit Court if the appellate court so ordered, at any time and place, and that he render himself in execution and obey every order and judgment made, binds the accused to appear in the appellate court, not only at the term specified, but at any term when the appeal is heard, and may be forfeited for his nonappearance at a subsequent term at which the appeal is consid- ere d State v Morgan (Mo, 1894), 28 S W Rep 17 Appeal Dismisse d Where, on appeal from a conviction imposing a fine, the accused gave a recognizance condi- tioned "to appear in the appellate court and pay all judgments rendered against him therein," and the appeal was dismissed on application of the accused held, that this operated as an affirmance of the conviction, rendered accused and his sureties liable on the appeal bond to pay the fine, and war- ranted its forfeitur e State v Bie- man, 12 Mont N Entry in Appellate Court. Where a recognizance on appeal is conditioned only for the appearance of the accused in the appellate court, and contains no condition for the prosecution of the appeal, there is no default, and it cannot be enforced until the case has been entered in the appellate court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

U S v Eldredge, 5 Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:15:45 +0000
State v Miller, 58 Vt 21 Not Set Aside Before Hearin g Where a person convicted of a misdemeanor has been admitted to bail pending ap- peal therefrom, his recognizance so given should not be set aside prior to the trial or hearing in the appellate court on the motion of the accuse d State v Allison, 44 Ka N 423 Cannot be Forfeited on Reversa L A recognizance given on appeal in a criminal matter can only be forfeited when the judgment of conviction ap- pealed from is affirmed; when such a judgment is reversed such a recogni- zance has served its purpose and be- comes functus offici O A reversal puts the case in the same position as though a new trial had been granted, and the original recognizance given remains in full force and is binding for the ap- pearance of the accuse d Wells v State, 21 Tex App 594 2 McGee v State, n Tex App 520; State v Winninger, 81 Ind 51 See also Coleman v State, 10 Md 168 Power to Adjourn Onl Y Where a statute provided that in the absence of the judge authorized to try the accused another judge could adjourn the cause held, that the latter judge could take a recognizance for the ap- pearance of the accused on the ad- journed day, but that he could not for- feit such recognizance for the failure of the accused to appear on the ad- journed da Y State v, Schaffer, 36 Mo App 589 Case Remove d When a case is re- moved from a county to a District Court, the District Court, upon the failure of the accused to appear there- in for trial, may forfeit a recognizance given by him for appearance in the county court. Baker v State (le X Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 1039, affirmed in (Tex Cri M App, 1893) 24 S W Rep 31 After a Change of Venue and continu- ance on account of prejudice of the judge, he ceases to be a judge in the cause, under the Missouri statute, and has no authority to forfeit a recognizance and enter judgment thereo N State v Schaffer, 36 Mo App 589 b, GROUND S The failure of the accused to appear at the time and place specified in his recognizance is the basis and ground for the forfeiture thereof 2 To prevent a forfeiture the accused must appear at the exact time specified, 3 although no indictment 1 State v Cornig, 42 La An N 416 Must be File d A recognizance must be filed with the clerk of the proper court before it can be forfeite d Belt v Spaulding, 17 Oregon 130 Although a statute requires that a recognizance shall be filed and re- corded before it is forfeited held, that a forfeiture taken before this was done was not invali d Jennings v State, 13 Ka N 80; Adams v State, 48 Ind 212 It is not necessary to show that a recognizance has been filed in court in order to maintain an action on it. U S v Eldredge, 5 Utah 161 Contra in an action of scire facias, Davis v State, 5 Blackf (Ind) 374 2 U S v Hodgkin,iCranch( C C) 510; Shore v State, 6 Mo 640; State v Millsaps 69 Mo 359 ; Co M v Dowdican's Bail, 115 Mas S 133 A Justice of the Peace must have an office, and on changing his office notice should be given to those who have been required to appear at his former offic e When this was not done a for- feiture for failure to appear at the new office, they having appeared at his former office at the proper time, was held voi d Hannum v State, 38 Ind 32 3 Co M v Cayton, 2 Dana (Ky) 138; Shore v State, 6 Mo 640 Fear of Bodily Harm from persons who had threatened it is no excuse for failure to appeaRFleenor v State, 58 Ind 166 Day Left in Blan K Where the con- dition of a recognizance was that the principal should "appear at the Cir- cuit Court on the first day of the next term, * * * to be holden on the day of June next," it was held that he was bound to take notice of the day the court met, and that the omission of the day of the month was immate- ria L State v Potts, 60 Mo 368 After Cause Continue d Where the court ordered a case continued to the next term \vithout any requirement that the recognizance should be re- newed, it was held that there could not afterwards be a default for failure to attend further at the current ter M Townsend v People, 14 Mich 388 Succeeding Ter M A recognizance for the appearance of the accused at a specified term of court binds the sure- ties therein for his appearance at the succeeding term, even though no ac- tion is taken or order made at the term specifie d State v Ryan, 23 Iowa 406, following State v Brown, 16 Iowa 314 See also Norfolk v People, 43 111 9 But compare State v Mackey, 55 Mo 51 After Case Submitte d Where a de- fendant absconds after the case is submitted to the jury, but before ver- dict, his bond may be forfeite d Gales v State, 64 Mis S 105 Imprisonment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

State v Baldwin, 78 Iowa Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:56:59 +0000
It is no excuse for the nonappearance of the accused that he went into another state and was there imprisoned, and his recog- nizance is properly forfeited for his nonappearanc e Yarbrough v Co M, 89 Ky 151 Enlistment. It is no defense that the principal had enlisted as a volun- teer in the arm Y Winninger v State, 23 Ind 228 Lack of Evidenc e Where the ac- cused failed to appear because of his inability to obtain certain evidence, his recognizance was ordered forfeited unless he gave a new one to appear at the next ter M People v Winchell, 7 Co W ( N Y) 160 Different Charg e A recognizance given in a lower court, conditioned for the appearance of the accused in a higher court, to answer a charge therein specified binds the accused to appear and answer any charge pre- ferred against him, and it may be for- feited for his nonappearance to answer a different charge from that specified in the recognizanc e Co M v Teevens, 143 Mas S 210 After Convictio N Where a recog- nizance is conditioned for the appear- ance of the accused to answer, and also to abide the judgment and orders of the court, it may be forfeited for the nonappearance of the accused after conviction, as ordered by the has been found against hi M 1 But he is not bound to appear at any other time than that so specified, and a recognizance cannot be forfeited for failure to do so unless from the form of the re- cognizance an appearance until discharged is require d 2 court. State v Baldwin, 78 Iowa 737 See also State v Thompson, 62 Ind 367; State v Whitson, 8 Blackf (Ind) 178 In Missouri no authority exists for exacting a recognizance for appear- ance after trial to answer the sentenc e State v Cobb, 44 Mo App 375; State v Bobb, 39 Mo App 543 1 State -v Saunders, 8 N J L 177; Co M v Cayton, 2 Dana (Ky) 138; Adair v State, i Blackf (Ind) 201; Fleece v State, 25 Ind 384; State v Cooper, 2 Blackf (Ind) 226; Shore v State, 6 Mo 640; O'Brien v People, 41 111 456; Garrison v People, 21 111 535; State v Kyle, 99 Ala 256; State v Cocke, 37 Tex 155 See also State v Ake, 41 Tex 166 2 Winslow v Anderson, 3 Dev b (N Car) 12; Swank v State, 3 Ohio St 429; People v Derby, I P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 392 From Day to Da Y In Wilson v State, 6 Blackf (Ind) 212, it was held that the condition of a recognizance, that a person shall appear at the then next termof the Circuit Court and from day to day, etc, is a condition for his appearance on the first day of the term, and on every other day thereof unless sooner discharge d Wilson v State, 6 Blackf (Ind) 212 See also State v Ritter, 3 Mo App 562 Where a recognizance requires the accused to appear on a day specified, it cannot be forfeited for his nonap- pearance on another day, although the latter day is that on which court is held, and the date in the recogni- zance is a wrong date, inserted by mistak e Winslow v Anderson, 3 Dev B (N Car) 12 When a recognizance is returnable on a specified day, it cannot be for- feited on any other day unless notice tn appear thereon be given, although by statute recognizances are continued from term to ter M Moss v State, 6 Ho W (Mis S) 298 Where the condition of a recogni- zance was that the accused should appear at the first day of the term and from day to day, and not depart with- out leave, it was held the accused was bound to appear only during the then term of court, and that if the court ad- journed without making any order in the premises the recognizance was discharge d Swank v State, 3 Ohio St 429 Next Ter M Where a recognizance binds the accused to appear at the next term of court, it cannot be for- feited for nonappearance at a second term held subsequent theret O People v Derby, i P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 392 Where a recognizance requires the accused to appear at a jury term, to be held at a time therein specified, it can- not be forfeited for his failure to appear at a special jury term sub- sequently appointed to be held at a prior dat e State v Aubrey, 43 La An N 188 Abide Order of Court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268

mail to: pirton@mail.ru