Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Cal. 385

People v. Wolf

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1860

California Supreme Court · decided 1860-07-01

Suit on a bond given by defendants for the appearance, etc., in the Court of Sessions, of one Diehl, indicted for exposing poison to cattle. At the term of Court following the execution of the bond, the District Attorney presented affidavits that Diehl was absent from the State, and moved that he be called for arraignment on the indictment, and, in default of appearance, that his bond be forfeited.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1916

6 state decisions

30186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Cope, J. concurring.

¶2This was an action on a forfeited recognizance. The principal in the bond was called, and the recognizance declared forfeited, for want of the appearance of the principal in the Court of Sessions of Contra Costa county. The suit on the recognizance was brought in the District Court. The defense of the sureties in that Court was, that the defendant, though personally absent, offered to appear by attorney, and, *386therefore, that the Court had not power to declare the bond forfeited, and to refuse to hear the defense of the princij>al defendant by attorney. It is not necessary to consider the question, so elaborately argued, whether a party indicted for a misdemeanor, has an absolute right to appear by attorney. It is sufficient that if the Court of Sessions erred in this respect, the error cannot be corrected or be made available in the District Court. The Court of Sessions decided that the defendant made no appearance, and forfeited his bond; and this judgment, if erroneous upon the facts, cannot be revised in the District Court, in the form of a plea or defense to the suit on the recognizance. This matter would be really a retrial of the subject passed upon by the Court of Sessions, or an indirect appeal from its decision.

¶3The other points made are without merit.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/16/cal/385 · .json · Public domain