Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 N.C. 174

State v. . Houston

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1876

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1876-01-05

Scire Facia*, upon a recognizance alleged to have been forfeited, tried before his Honor Judge Schenck, at August Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of MeckleNbubg county. The defendant, W. H. II. Houston, was arrested to answer a bill of indictment found against him at Fall Term, 1874, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, and lie with tlio other defendants entered into the following recognizance : S“ Ü I Whereas W. II. 11.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 2001

3 state decisions

1018761880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

IIeade, J.

¶1 1. That the bond taken in this ease is good as a reo< gnizuvoe for the appearance of the principal defendant. See case between the same parties at this term; and State v. Elney, 2 Winst. 71.

¶2 2. A recognizance for the appearance of the defendant at the next term of the court to bo held for a given county ii valid, and binds the defendant to appear at the next term, nd at the courthouse; although neither time nor place 1 e sje i-fically named; because every one knows, or is presi med to know the time and place of holding the court. Tut if the recognizance njjeoífy time and place, the defendant cannot be held to be in default for not appearing at some other time or place.

¶3 Here the defendant was recognized to appear at the next, court to be held on the 8th Monday after the 4th Monday in March; and he was called out on 22d February. An additional term of the court having been provided for by statute to be held at that time, after the recognizance was taken to appear on 8th Monday after 4th Monday of March was not forfeited by his failure to appear on 22d February. State v. Melton, Busb. 426.

¶4 There is no error. This will be certified.

¶5 Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.

/74/nc/174 · .json · Public domain