State v. Houston, 74 N.C. 174 (1876)

Jan. 1876 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

74 N.C. 174

STATE v. W. H. H. HOUSTON and others.

.A recognizance,' conditioned that the'defendant appear at the Court House in O, on the 8th Monday after the 4th Monday in March, 1875, is not forfeited by the defendant’s failure to appear on the 22d oj February, 1815.

'■{State v. Melton, Busb. 426, cited and approved.)

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. Houston has been arrested on a charge of the State upon a bill of indictment for forgery; Now therefore, we the said W. TI. II. Houston, as principal, and W. A Trott, E. A. Arrnfield, C. A. Arrnfield, C. Austin, John I). Stewart, J. R. Winchester and C. 13. Curleo as his sureties, acknowledge ourselves jointly and severally indebted to the State of North Carolina in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars each, to be levied of our several goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to be void on condition that the said W. H. II. Houston shall personally appear at the next term of the Superior Court to be held for said county at the court house in Charlotte, on the 8 th Monday after the 4th Monday in March, 1875, then and there to answer said charge and not depart the same without leave.

Signed and sealed this 14th day of Dec., 1874, before S. H. Walkup, C. S. C., of Union county, State aforesaid.

W. H. H. HOUSTON, [Seal.]

W. H. TROTT, [Seal.]

E. A. ARMEIELD, ■ [Seal.]

C. AUSTIN, [Seal.]

JOHN D. STEWART, [Seal.]

J. R. WINCHESTER, [Seal.]

C. B. CURLEE, [Seal.]

At February Term, 1875, the defendant Houston was called and failed to answer, and thereupon judgment nisi was entered upon his recognizance.

A sci.fa. was issued to Union county for the defendants to appear at Spring Term, 1875, and show cause why the said judgment should not be made absolute. The defendants appeared in accordance to the miI/u and pleaded “¡in-ltid recon ,” and the cause was continued until August Term, when judgment was rendered for the defendants and the State appealed.

Attorney General flargrov,, for the State.

No counsel for defendants.

IIeade, J.

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. 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.

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.

There is no error. This will be certified.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.