From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Horton

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1898
31 S.E. 218 (N.C. 1898)

Summary

In S. v. Horton, 123 N.C. 695, it was held that where a defendant gave bond to appear at a regular term which was not held by reason of the absence of the judge, such defendant is responsible on his bond for his appearance at a special term held between that time and the next succeeding regular term.

Summary of this case from State v. Eure

Opinion

(Decided 10 October, 1898.)

Forfeited Recognizance.

A defendant bound over to answer a criminal charge at a regular term of the Superior Court, which term is not held in consequence of the absence of the judge, is required by virtue of section 919 of The Code to attend at an intervening special term subsequently appointed and held.

SCIRE FACIAS upon forfeited recognizance, heard before Norwood, J., at Spring Term, 1898, of the Superior Court of PASQUOTANK County.

The defendant Horton, with Ward as his surety, was bound over by a justice of the peace for his appearance at Fall Term, 1897 (3d Monday in September, 1897) of the Superior Court of Pasquotank County, to answer a charge of larceny. This term was not held owing to the sickness of the judge. The defendant was in attendance.

A special term was advertised and held for the county in January, 1898, at which term the grand jury found a true bill of indictment against Horton, who was called and failed to appear, and judgment nisi was rendered against him and his surety, Ward, and a scire facias was ordered, returnable to Spring Term, 1898, and duly served. The defendant Ward filed his answer to the scire facias, setting forth substantially the foregoing facts:

The Solicitor for the State moved for judgment absolute upon the scire facias and forfeited recognizance, which motion his Honor refused, and directed the writ of scire facias to be discharged.

The State excepted to the ruling, and appealed.

Zeb V. Walser, Attorney-General for the State (appellant). (696)

G. W. Ward for defendant.


The defendant gave recognizance for his appearance "at the next term of the Superior Court on the third Monday in September." At that term the judge, being ill, did not appear, and the court was "adjourned until next term." Code, sec. 926. It would be a grave miscarriage of justice if on such facts all recognizances are discharged when no officer is present authorized to take renewals. In Askew v. Stevenson, 61 N.C. 288, it was held that the cause was continued "certainly for one term" and probably "from term to term until the attendance of a judge to hold the court," by virtue of Revised Code, ch. 31, sec. 24. That section was brought forward in The Code, sec. 919, with the words stricken out which formerly restricted its application to civil cases. Certainly this section applies in the present case, as a special term was held in January following, of which "due notice was given by publication in the newspapers and otherwise," and section 919 provides that all persons "bound to appear at the next regular term of the court shall attend at the special term under the same rules, etc." The recognizance to appear at September Term was not to "depart the same without leave." There being no judge present no leave was given beyond the adjournment "till next term." The Code, sec. 926, by operation of law carried all matters over to "the next regular term" in the same plight and condition ( Walker v. State, 6 Ala. 350), and this was transferred to the intervening special term by virtue of The Code, sec. 919. No hardship can accrue from any bona fide mistake in such matters, as the judge has discretion to remit or lessen forfeitures in all cases (Code, sec. (697) 1205), but in refusing judgment on the scire facias there was error. State v. Houston, 74 N.C. 174, has no application, for thereafter the bond was given a new regular term was established by law to be held before the term at which the defendant was bound over to appear.

Error.


Summaries of

State v. Horton

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1898
31 S.E. 218 (N.C. 1898)

In S. v. Horton, 123 N.C. 695, it was held that where a defendant gave bond to appear at a regular term which was not held by reason of the absence of the judge, such defendant is responsible on his bond for his appearance at a special term held between that time and the next succeeding regular term.

Summary of this case from State v. Eure
Case details for

State v. Horton

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. JOHN HORTON AND GEORGE W. WARD

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 1, 1898

Citations

31 S.E. 218 (N.C. 1898)
123 N.C. 695

Citing Cases

State v. Mills

The surety Winstead has not shown us any North Carolina law which requires that the surety be given notice of…

State v. Eure

3 A. and E. (2 Ed.), 714. In S. v. Horton, 123 N.C. 695, it was held that where a defendant gave bond to…