Laws

State v Marshall, 21 Iowa Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:42:38 +0000
Hodges v State, 20 Tex "Stealing two bushels of corn, the property of A," is sufficient. Gay v State, 20 Tex 504 " Seduction " is sufficient. State v Marshall, 21 Iowa 143 " Stealing from the store " of certain parties is sufficient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Tillson v State, 29 Ka Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:25:49 +0000
Young v People, 18 111 566 " Shooting and killing another" is insufficient. Hannah v Wells, 4 Ore- gon 249 A bail bond which recited that the principal was charged with unlawfully altering a written order for five dol- lars' worth of goods " by erasing ' five ' and writing ' eight,' so as to make the said instrument fully appear as stated above," was held invalid, because it did not set out the tenor of the instrument after the alteratio N Bowman v State (Tex App, 1890), 13 S W Rep 1009 The Insufficiency of Description of the offense in the recognizance can bp taken advantage of by the sureties by a motion in arrest of judgment in a suit on the recognizanc e Sively v State, 44 Tex 274 In the Stat e The omission of a statement that the offense was com- mitted in the state does not per se ren- der the recognizance voi d Adams v Governor, 22 Ga 417 Larcen Y Where a recognizance re- cites the charge against the accused as larceny, it covers larceny from a dwelling as well as from the perso N Foate v Gordon, 87 Ga 277 MisdemeanoRA recognizance con- ditioned for the appearance of the ac- cused to answer "for the offense of misdemeanor " was held to be a suffi- cient description of the offense, and vali d Vinson v Northern ( Ga, 1894), Indorsement on Recognizanc e If the name of the offense is indorsed on the recognizance it is sufficient, although it be not stated in it. Tillson v State, 29 Ka N 452 Several Indictments on Same Da Y Six indictments were found for for- gery on the same da Y Held, that it was not necessary that the recogni- zance should specify to which one of the six it referre d People v Court of Oyer and T, 7 Hun ( N Y) 114 1 State v Sypher, 19 La An N 71; State v Ridgley, 10 La An N 302; Co M v West, r Dana(Ky) 165; Simp- son v Co M.

Autor of the post: Undefined

3 The sum stated therein Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:14:49 +0000
I Dana (Ky) 523; Belt v Spaulding, 17 Oregon 130; Foard v State, 3 Tex App 556; Massey v State, 4 Tex App 580; Cotton v State, 7 Tex 547; Stancel v State, 6 Tex App 460; Tousey -v State, 8 Tex 173; Morris v State, 4 Tex App 554; O'Bannon v State, 9 Tex App 465; Hutchinsan v State, 4 Tex App 435; Keppler v State, 14 Tex App 173; Gonzales -v State, 31 Tex 205; Cresap v State, 28 Tex App 529; Morgan v State, 32 Tex Cri M Rep 413; Turner v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 26 S W Rep 62; Short v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 288; Calhoun v State (TexCri M App ,1894), 25 S W Rep 126; Hurkey v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 423; Jackson v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 24 S W Rep 902; Roe v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 28; Wilson v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 33; Allison v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 26 S W Rep 1081; Stroud v State, 33 Tex 650; Blevins v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 23 S W Rep 688; Henderson v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 23 S W Rep 692; Adler v State, 31 Tex 61; Breeding v State, 31 Tex 94; Dailey v State, 4 Tex 417; La Rose v State, 29 Tex App 215; Johnson v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 371; Donahoe v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 372; Mullinix v State, 32 Tex Cri M Rep 116; Yokum v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 191; Reed v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 364; Morgan v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 260; Dage;ett v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893;, 21 S W Rep 360; Harris v State (Tex Cri M App, 1892), 20 S W Rep 708; McDaniel v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 20 S W Rep 1108, Flemming v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 1038; Shackelford v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 26; Sanders v State (Tex Cri M App, 1892), 20 S W Rep 360; Alderete v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 17; Davis v State, 30 Tex 352; State v Gordon, 41 Tex 510; U S v Hand, 6 McLean (U S) 274 The foregoing Texas cases were de- cided under a statute which requires that "the offense of which the de- fendant is accused be distinctly named in the bond, and that it appear therefrom that he is accused of some offense against the laws ol the stat e" Reciting Specific Charg e Although a recognizance need not set out the crime charged with technical accuracy, f it attempts to recite a specific t-narge such charge must be so re- CieO as to show that an offense has ben committed for which an indict- me I* will lie; otherwise the recogni- zance is voi d Dailey v State, 4 Tex 417 A bail bond which recited the offense as " unlawfully selling mortgaged property " was held to describe no offense under the laws of Texa S Cra- vey -v State, 26 Tex App 84 Where the condition of a recogni- zance was to appear and answer a charge of " gaming," without describ- ing the kind of game, so that it could appear whether it was indictable held, that the recognizance was ba d Co M v West, i Dana (Ky) 165 A recognizance to answer a charge for "resisting process " is sufficiently definite, although, under the statute, the offense consists in knowingly and wilfully resisting or opposing an offi- cer in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or proces S Browder v State, 9 Ala 58 A recognizance to appear and an- swer a charge of " felony" was held sufficiently definite, because every felony is indictabl e Cotton v State, No Cri Me Where the charge stated in a recognizance is of a matter which is not legally a crime or offense the recognizance is voi d Stroud v State, 33 Tex 650; Montgomery v State, 33 Tex 179; Moore v State, 34 Tex 138; State v Brown, 34 Tex 146; Cotton v State, 7 Tex 547; Tousey v State, 8 Tex 173; State v Hotchkiss, 30 Tex 162; Davis v State, 30 Tex 352 A recognizance with a condition that the accused should not gamble for twelve months was held void, as not authorized by law; the proper form would have been " for good behavior generall Y" Estes v State, 2 Humph (Tenn) 496 Jurisdictio N Where a statute pro- vided that bail bonds must state an offense against the laws of the state, and a recognizance recited that the accused was charged " with unlaw- fully marrying p, he then and there having a wife living" held, that the recognizance was void for failing to show that the marriage occurred in the state, that being essential to the commission of the crime of bigamy under the state law S La Rose v State, 29 Tex App 215 Where a statute made it an offense to bring into a state property stolen in another state held, that a recogni- zance binding the accused to answer an indictment for stealing a horse in the Indian Territory and bringing said horse into the state of Texas was invali d Edwards v State, 29 Tex App 452 Degree of Cri Me A recognizance need not state the degree of the crime charge d State v Tennant, 30 La An N 852; Thompson v State, 31 Tex 1 66 On Oat H A recognizance need not show that the charge therein specified was made on oath; when filed it be- comes a record of the court, and is presumptive evidence that the charge was regularly mad e M'Carty v State, I Blackf (Ind) 338 1 Walker v State, 32 Tex Cri M Rep 517; Kennedy v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 24 S W Rep 901; Knight v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 103; Wells v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 370; Garza v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 139; Parker v State (Tex Cri M App, 1892), 20 S W Rep 707; Burrows v State (Tex App, 1891), 17 S W Rep 257- Contr A Holcombe v State, 99 Ala 185 Several Charge S The charge which the accused is held to answer should clearly appear; hence, where two dis- recognizance is a different one from that with which the accused was charged, the recognizance is invali d 1 Where the accused has been indicted, the offense stated in the recognizance should be the same as that described in the indictment ; one of the same general class or nature is insufficient. 2 (5) Amount A recognizance must bind the recognizors in a cer- tain sum or amount, which must be specified in it. 3 The sum stated therein must be the same sum specified in the order or direction granting the application for bail, or the recognizance will be invali d 4 tinct charges of theft were described, but the offense for which the accused was held was not specified held, that the recognizance was voi d Patton v State, 35 Tex 92 Where an indictment contains two counts, each for distinct offenses, a recognizance which recites both of- fenses is not bad for duplicit Y Doug- lass v State, 26 Tex App 248 A recognizance is not invalid be- cause the accused was charged with two distinct offenses before the magis- trat e State v Fowler, 28 N H 184 1 Van Way v State, 44 Tex 112; Barrera v State, 32 Tex 644; Moore v State, 34 Tex 138; Foster v State, 27 Tex 236; Smalley v State, 3 Tex App 202; Addison v State, 14 Tex App 568; McAdams v State, 10 Tex App 317; Gray v State, 43 Ala 41; State v Rogers, 36 Mo 138; State v Gibson, 23 La An N 698 Immaterial Varianc e A recogni- zance is not invalid because of an im- material variance between the charge against the accused, as actually made, and the statement thereof Allen v Co M, 90 Va 356; Coleman v State, 32 Tex Cri M Rep 595; Nash v State, 32 Tex Cri M Rep 368; Allphin v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 26 S W Rep 61 In Kansas a person accused may be required to give bail to appear and answer another and different charge from that alleged in the complaint and affidavit on which he was arreste d Redmond v State, 12 Ka N 172 2 Pack v State, 23 Ark 235; Bowen v State, 28 Tex App 103; Heilman v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 1120; Duke v State, 35 Tex 424; McAdams v State, 10 Tex App 317; Keppler v State, 14 Tex App 173; State v Forno, 14 La An N 454 Contr A State v Tennant, 30 La An N 852 An Immaterial Variance between the charge specified in a recognizance and the indictment found does not invali- date the recognizanc e People v Brown, 59 Hun ( N Y) 618 A recognizance is valid although it describes the offense as " assault, with intent to kill," while the indictment is for "assault with intent to kill and murde R" State v Hotchkiss, 30 Tex 162 A recognizance is not invalid al- though it requires the accused to answer the charge of "burglary," and the indictment found is for "burglary and larcen Y" State v Peyton, 32 Mo App 522 Where the indictment was for "as- sault, with intent to murder," and the recognizance stated the charge as as- sault and intent to murder, it was held sufficient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Hall v State, 9 Ala Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:56:35 +0000
Colquitt v Bond, 69 Ga 351 A recognizance reciting that the grand jury had made a presentment against the accused for the crime of perjury, and conditioned for the ap- pearance of the accused to " answer said presentment," was held sufficient- ly definite, as implying the finding of an indictment against the accused for perjur Y Wood v People, 16 111 171 On Same Evidenc e If the accused is indicted on the same evidence for a different offense from that for which he was held to bail, this will not in- validate the recognizanc e State v Bryant, 55 Iowa 451 3 Warner S Howard, 121 Mas S 82 4 U S -v Goldstein, i Dil L (U S) 413; Neblett v State, 6 Tex App 316; State v Buffum, 22 N H 267; Cooper v Co M, 13 Bush (Ky) 654; Waugh v People, 17 111 561; State v McCown , 24 W Va 625 But see Peters v State, 10 Tex App 302; Co M v Por- ter, i A K Marsh (Ky) 44 Conformity to OrdeRThe recog- nizance must conform to the order admitting to bail; so where the ac- (6) Name of Accuse d A recognizance should contain the name of the accused, so that he may be identified, but a slight error in stating his name will not vitiate it. 1 b EXECUTIO N Each Person accused should become bound by a recognizance, 2 unless the accused be an infant, a feme covert, or a cused was admitted to bail in four hundred dollars, with two sureties to justify in two hundred dollars each, and he gave bail for four hun- dred dollars, with ten sureties of forty dollars each, it was held in- valid, and the sureties were not bound thereb Y State v Buffum, 22 N H 267 Where an order required a recog- nizance to be given by each defendant in a specified sum, and the defendants gave a joint bond in that sum, it was held not invali d Humphries v State, 33 Ark 713 Several Offense S Where bail is or- dered for a specified amount for each of several offenses, a recognizance given for the aggregate amount is invali d Cooper v Co M, 13 Bush (Ky) 654- Where distinct offenses are charged and the accused is directed to give bail in separate and distinct sums therefor, but he gives only one bond for the ag- gregate amount, such bond is voi d U S v Goldstein, I Dil L (U S) 413 Where a person is charged with sev- eral separate offenses and required to give bail in separate and distinct sums, if he gives a recognizance in a single aggregate amount it is voi d U S v Goldstein, i Dil L (U S) 413 Joint and Severa L A recognizance is held to be joint and several whereby the parties acknowledge themselves to be bound in a stated amount to be levied severally and individually, etc, Fulton v State, 14 Tex App 32; El- lison v State, 8 Ala 273 ; but several where it is stated that each is bound in a specified amount, State v Davidson, 20 Mo 212 1 Lytle v People, 47 111 422; Bui- son v People, 31 111 409; Steen v State, 27 Tex 86; State v Rhodius, 37 Tex 165; Gorman v State, 38 Tex 112; People v Eaton, 41Cal657; and see Gay v State, 7 Ka N 394; State v Millsaps, 69 Mo 359 A recognizance is valid although the name of the accused does not appear in the body of it, if he signed or ac- knowledged it. Hall v State, 9 Ala .

Autor of the post: Undefined

Although the name Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:45:03 +0000
827; Cunningham -v State, 14 Mo 402 The omission of the name of the ob- ligor from the condition of a recog- nizance does not vitiate it. Gorman v State, 38 Tex 112 See Gay v State, 7 Ka N 394 MisnomeRA recognizance is not vitiated by a misnomer of the accused in stating bis name as Little instead of Lytl e Lytle v People, 47 111 422 In a proceeding by scire facias on a forfeited recognizance, the objection that the condition of the recognizance provided for the appearance of " A M Stokes," while the instrument was signed by " Wesley M Stokes," was obviated by the averment and proof that Wesley M Stokes was described in the recognizance, through mistake, as A M Stokes, and that the true intent and meaning of the recog- nizance was to secure the appearance of Wesley M Stoke S Stokes -v Peo- ple, 63 111 489 Different from Indictment. Although the name of the accused in the recog- nizance differs slightly from his name in the indictment, this does not vitiate the recognizanc e People v Eaton, 41Cal657 Two with Same Na Me Where two persons of the same name execute a re- cognizance, one as principal and the other as surety, it is not void for in- definiteness if the context clearly shows which one of them is the princi- pal for whose appearance the recog- nizance is conditione d State v Cherry, Meigs (Tenn) 232 2 Where two persons are jointly ac- cused, each should give a recognizance for his individual appearanc e Ferry v Burchard, 21 Con N 597 Sureties cannot bind a principal to, and are not themselves bound by, a re- cognizance which the principal does not assent to or sig N Hence, where a recognizance appeared to have been entered into by sureties alone, in the absence of the principal and without his assent held, that it was void, and the sureties were not bound thereb Y People v Slayton, i 111 329 Contr A A recognizance is valid al- though it be in the form of a penal bond, and signed, sealed, and ex- person under some similar disability, in which case it can be en- tered into by the sureties alon e 1 Acknowledgment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

A recognizance is not invalid Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:28:33 +0000
The accused should appear before the court or magistrate and acknowledge the execution, but such acknowledg- ment need not be in writin g 8 No particular form of acknowl- edgment or certification thereof is necessary, if it appears there- from that the recognizance was taken and accepted for the pur- poses contemplated by la W 3 Signing and Sealin g A recognizance proper need not be signed un- less a statute or the local practice requires it, 4 nor is a seal re- ecuted by the sureties only, and having merely the initials of the name of the accused in it. Ingram v State, 10 Ka N 630 1 Co M -v Semmes, n Leigh ( Va) 696; Minor v State, i Blatchf (Ind) 236; Schultze v State, 43 Md 295 Contr A Starr v Co M, 7 Dana (Ky)2 43 2 Co M v McHenry, 13 Phi La (Pa) 451; Co M -v Emery, 2 Bin N (Pa) 431 See for an insufficient certification, State v West, 3 Ohio St 509 In Open Court. A recognizance is not invalid because taken in open court instead of before the judge in person, although the statute names a judge as empowered to take it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

This is the most regular Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:15:04 +0000
Co M -v Wetzel(Ky, 1886), 2 S W Rep 123 No Personal Appearance MisdemeanoRIn Iowa it is provided by statute that in cases of misdemeanor the magistrate shall indorse on the warrant the amount of bail, and give directions for the release of the accused upon giving it, and that bail may be given to the officer making the arreSt Under these provisions it was held that the accused could give bail without per- sonally appearing before the magis- trat e State v Benzion, 79 Iowa 467 3 Lawrence v People, 17 111 172 " The Manner of Taking a Recogni- zance is, that the magistrate repeats to the recognizers the obligation into which they are to enter, and the con- dition of it, at large, and asks them if they are content. He makes a short memorandum, which it is not neces- sary that they should sign, although a custom has lately taken place in this city for the recognizers to sign their name S From this short minute the magistrate may afterwards draw up the recognizance in full form, and cer- tify it to the court. This is the most regular and proper way of proceed- in g" Co M v Emery, 2 Bin N (Pa) 434- Memorandu M To render a recogni- zance valid some judgment should be entered or memorandum made in writ- ing, signed by the magistrate, showing that an examining court was held and the accused admitted to bai L Morgan v Co M, 12 Bush (Ky) 84 A memorandum preceding a recogni- zance, stating the manner of its execu- tion and who are the recognizers made by a justice of the peace, is equivalent to a formal certificate of these facts at the foot of the recogni- zanc e Badger v State, 5 Ala 21 And see Howie v State, i Ala 113 Attestatio N A recognizance for the appearance of the person accused before a justice at a subsequent time need not show that it was attested by the justic e Ross v State, 6 Blackf (Ind) 315 Where a recognizance is taken by a sheriff his attestation thereto must show what county he is sheriff of, or the recognizance will be voi d State v Austin, 4 Humph (Tenn) 213 Authority of Judg e A recognizance stating that it had been entered into before an associate judge of the county is valid, although it does not state him to be a judge of the Circuit Court, he being such in fact, and authorized to take it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Ir- win v State, 10 Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:04:31 +0000
M'Carty v State, I Blackf (Ind) 338 Official Character of OfficeRWhere a recognizance omitted to state the offi- cial character of the person who cer- tified it, and also the amount in which the accused was bailed held, that it was invali d Irwin v State, 10 Neb Deliver Y A recognizance cannot be delivered in escrow to the oblige e There must be an absolute delivery of it. Brown v State, 18 Tex App 326 4 Co M v Emery, 2 Bin N (Pa) 434; State v Patterson, 23 Iowa 575; Hall v State, 9 Ala 827; Badger v The Approval of a recognizance need not be indorsed on it to ren- der it valid, 2 nor need it be attested by a sea L 3 A Recognizance Dates from the time of its execution, not from that of its approva L 4 State, 5 Ala 21; State v West, 3 Ohio St 510; Madison v Co M, 2 A K Marsh (Ky) 131; Co M v Mason, 3 A K Marsh (Ky)456; Grinestaff v State, 53 Ind 238; State v Elder, 35 Ind 368; Minor v State, i Blackf (Ind) 236; Campbell v State, 18 Ind 375; Ingram v State, 10 Ka N 630; Tillson v State, 29 Ka N 452; Irwin v State, 10 Neb 325 See also Dres- ser v Fifield, 12 RI 24; Hammons v State, 59 Ala 164; People v Kane, 4 De N ( N Y) 537- But signing does not vitiate it. Ir- win v State, 10 Neb 325; Milliken v State, 21 Ohio St 635; Kearns v State, 3 Blackf (Ind) 334 In Some States a recognizance is re- quired to be signe d People v Hug- gins, 10 Wen d ( N Y) 471; State v Cherry, Meigs (Tenn) 232; Ark Rev Stat, C 52, 58; Hall v State, 9 Ala 827; Cunningham v State, 14 Mo 402; State v Peyton, 32 Mo App 522; State v Taylor, 19 La An N 145 In re Fowler, 49 Mich 234 Contra, Madi- son v Co M, 2 A K Marsh (Ky) 131; Co M v Mason, 3 A K Marsh (Ky) 456; Co M v Emery, 2 Bin N (Pa) 431; U S v Pickett, i Bond (U S) 123; People v Love, 19Cal677 In the Bod Y If the recognizance is signed, the names of those bound need not appear in the body of it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

A statute requir- ing Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:44:47 +0000
Badger v State, 5 Ala 21 ; Hall v State, 9 Ala 827; Cunningham v State, 14 Mo 402 So where a statute required it to be subscribed, it was held that a signa- ture placed in the body of the instru- ment instead of at the bottom of it was sufficient. State v Wilcox, 59 Mo 176 On Adjournment. A statute requir- ing the recognizance to be signed and sealed was held not to apply to one given on the adjournment of a pre- liminary examinatio N Gamble -v State, 21 Ohio St 183 Signing by Marks or Initials of the parties executing it is a sufficient sig- natur e Hammons v State, 59 Ala 164 1 Hall v State, 9 Ala 827; Tolison v State, 39 Ala 103; Shattuck v Peo- ple, 5 111 477; State v Foot, 2 Mil L ( S Car) 123; Madison v Co M, 2 A K Marsh (Ky) 131; Co M v Mason, 3 A K Marsh (Ky) 456; Grinestaff v State, 53 Ind 238; Kearns v Stat e 3 Blackf (Ind) 336; Irwin v State, 10 Neb 325 Bond without Sea L Where the stat- ute required bail in certain cases to be given by bond held, that the stat- ute required a sealed instrument, and that one given without seal was in- vali d Williams v State, 25 Fla 734- Omission of Name from Bod Y The omission of the name of the sure- ties from the body of a recogni- zance does not invalidate it if it be taken before a court or magistrate au- thorized to take it, and signed and sealed by the partie S Badger z/ State, 5 Ala 21 2 Adler v State, 35 Ark 517; Peo- ple v Penniman, 37Cal271 Evidence Aliund e The fact that a recognizance has been approved may be shown by other evidence than the existence of the word "approved" written thereo N Ozeley v State, 59 Ala 94 Oral Approva L The approval need not be written on it; such approval may be made orally, and if the accused is released on the recognizance the due approval thereof is presume d State v Wright, 37 Iowa 522 3 Hall v State, 9 Ala 827; Kearns v State, 3 Blackf (Ind) 336; Grine- staff v State, 53 Ind 238; Slaten v People, 21 111 28; Holmes v State, 17 Neb 73; State v Foot, 2 Mil L ( S Car) 123 In Texas a recognizance need not be approved by the court, Arrington ?'.

Autor of the post: Undefined

People v Welch, 47 How Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:32:06 +0000
State, 13 Tex App 551; but it must be approved by the sheriff, Ake v State, 4 Tex App 126 In Colorado a justice has power and jurisdiction to approve a recognizance, although the sheriff has received it and released the accused before such ap- prova L Haney v People, 12 Colo Executed on Sunda Y A recognizance is valid although executed on Sunda Y 1 Filing and Recordin g It is essential that a recognizance be filed, after its execution, in the court to which it is returnabl e 2 It is filed in time if filed at or before the time specified therein for per- formanc e 3 A recognizance must also be recorded in the min- utes of the court. 4 It does not become a court record by its A recognizance may be dated as of the same day on which the accused is recognized to appeaRState v Brad- ley, I Blackf (Ind) 83 The contrary was held as to a recognizance on ap- peal, under the provisions of particu- lar statute S Co M v Harley, 7 Met (Mas S) 467 The Date of the Acknowledgment of a recognizance by the surety will be considered the date of its execution, although it is several months after the date of the certificate of approval of the clerk and sheriff Williams v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 686 The Omission of a Date in the recog- nizance is cured by the date attached to the sheriff's approval thereof Ake v State, 4 Tex App 126 An Error in the Year stated in a re- cognizance does not invalidate it. People v Welch, 47 How Pr ( N Y C PL) 420; Gragg v State, 18 Tex App 295; Kellogg v State, 43 Mis S 57; Mooney v People, 81 111 134 See Ake v State, 4 Tex App 126 1 Rice v Co M, 3 Bush (Ky) 14; Watts v Co M, 5 Bush (Ky) 309; Johnston v People, 31 111 469; Ham- mons v State, 59 Ala 164; Salter v Smith, 55 Ga 244; State v Wyatt, 6 La An N 701; State v Douglass, 69 Ind 544; State v Suhur, 33 Me 539 2 State v Richardson, 28 Ark 346; People v Shaver, 4 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y ) 45 ; People v Van Eps, 3 Wen d ( N Y) 487; Dodge v Kellock, 10 Me 266; Palister v Little, 6 Me 350 Returning Extended Recor d Where the justices, in addition to returning the recognizance to the court at which the accused was to appear, also re- turned thereto an extended record of the facts and circumstances of the case as it appeared in their minutes, such return was held erroneou S Co M v McNeill, 19 Pic K (Mas S) 127 Illinoi S All the proceedings had before the magistrate are not required to be sent up to the court, but merely the recognizance of the accused and the witnesses of the prosecutio N Shattuck v People, 5 111 477 Indiana Where an action was brought on a recognizance given on a charge of felony, it was held that it must be shown by the record that the recognizance, with the justice's signa- ture thereto, was filed with the clerk of the Circuit 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