Smith v. Spencer
Opinion
It cannot matter, we think, that it was executed in New York. It is not the less voluntary because made in New York, and it derived its validity from its deposit in the clerk’s office. It does not lie in the mouth of the surety who signed it and deposited it, and thereby procured the release of the person charged with crime, to make the objection that he executed it in New York.
[705] The April term of Camden court was the Tuesday after the fourth Monday, and thé bond is dated the 10th of Api'il of the same year. Therefore the variance, to say the least, needs explanation. The superior court: having granted a new trial, and there being this variance between the allegation in the soire facias and the proof, the former making the same allegation that the bond was executed to secure the defendant’s presence under this indictment, this court will not interfere with the judgment, the effect of which is to try the case again.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
63 Ga. 702 (Smith v. Spencer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.