Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Mo. 168

State v. Railey

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 15, 1864

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1864-07-15

This was a scire facias upon an alleged recognizance. The defendants filed two pleas : 1. That there was no such record (mil tiel record). 2. That the supposed recognizance was taken upon the voluntary appearance of the principal and sureties before the justice of the peace, and without any adjudication made by the justice of the peace to authorize the taking of the same, and therefore that said supposed recognizance was void.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1908

4 state decisions

1018641870188018901900decided

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 →

Bates, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was a scire facias upon a recognizance taken by a justice of the peace and returned to the Circuit Court, where it was forfeited, and scire facias issued against principal and sureties, who pleaded, 1st, nul tiel record; and, 2d, that the recognizance was taken upon the voluntary appearance of the principal and sureties before the said justice of the peace, and without any adjudication made by him to authorize the taking of the same.

¶3At the trial, execution was awarded against the defendants, who have brought up the case by writ of error. The transcript of the docket of the justice is as follows:

“ State of Missouri, v. Lewis C. Railey. The defendant appeared before me and waived an examination, and admitted that he did shoot H. E. W. McDearmon, on the 11th day *172of May, 1861, with intent to kill, and entered into bond,” &c. It is now claimed by the plaintiffs in error, that, to authorize the justice to take the recognizance, there should have appeared an adjudication by him that an offence had been committed, and that there was probable cause to believe the defendant guilty. There is no question but that the recognizance was taken by a competent officer, for a lawful purpose, and in sufficiently good form. It is not necessary that the particular facts by which the officer acquired jurisdiction to take the recognizance should appear upon it. The recognizance itself shows a charge that a crime had been committed by the defendant, and the statute does not require that any record should be made of the justice’s adjudication that an offence had been committed, and that there was probable cause to believe the defendant guilty.

¶4The justice’s docket, though not showing an adjudication by the justice, shows an actual admission of the defendant that the crime had been committed, and not merely that there was probable cause to believe him guilty of it, but a direct and unequivocal admission of his guilt.

¶5The defence made is not meritorious and is not supported by the letter or spirit of the law.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

Judge Dryden concurs; Judge Bay absent.
/35/mo/168 · .json · Public domain