State v. W. A. Smith.

66 N.C. 620
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 66 N.C. 620 (State v. W. A. Smith.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. W. A. Smith., 66 N.C. 620 (N.C. 1872).

Opinion

*621 BoydeN, J.

His Honor was mistaken in holding that a defendant could not be called out after the cause had been continued. The defendant was only allowed to depart upon entering into a recognizance of $500, birt he departed without, having entered into the recognizance as required. His recognizance required him not to depart without leave of the Court. It is the universal practice near the close of the Court to look over the docket, and call such defendants as have departed without the leave of the Court.

But in such case, it is not regular to enter a judgment nisi. £iA recognizance, duly entered into, is a debt of record, and the object of a scire facias is to notify the cognizor to show cause, if any he have, wherefore the cognizee should not have execution of the same thereby acknowledged. No judgment of forfeiture is required before issuing the scire facias”

The recorded default makes it absolute, subject only to such matters of legal evidence as may be shown by plea, or to such matters of relief as may induce the Court to remit or mitigate the forfeiture.” Opinion of Judge Gaston in the ease of State v. Mills, 2 Dev. & Battle, 552.

The proceeedings in this case are very irregular and informal, but the only objection on the part of the defendant, was,, that the default occurred after the continuance of the cause. And His Honor, being of opinion, that when a case was continued, the defendant being in Court, the seenrety was thereby released.

In this there was error. This will be certified.-

Per CcriaM. Error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. . Staley
157 S.E. 25 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
State v. . Bradsher
127 S.E. 349 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
State v. . Hutchins
116 S.E. 740 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
State v. . Eure
89 S.E. 788 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
State v. White
79 S.E. 297 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
United States v. Jenkins
176 F. 672 (Fourth Circuit, 1909)
State v. Schenck.
49 S.E. 917 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
State v. Morgan.
48 S.E. 604 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
State Ex Rel. Solicitor v. Jenkins
28 S.E. 413 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 N.C. 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-w-a-smith-nc-1872.