Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman,C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Commonwealth against Ross.
    
      Monday, April 2,
    
    Where an alderman has authority to inquire into an offence, and commit the prisoner, hold him to bail, or discharge him, as circumstances may require; he may take & recognisance for his appearance before him, from time to time, pending the • examination^
    The condition of such a recognisance is not fulfilled by the appearance of the accused, if he abscond during the examination.
    FROM the special verdict returned by the jury in this case, it appeared that a certain Henry Hodgkinson, being charged before alderman Badger “ with a misdemeanor in writing letters without a real signature, with a view to extort money from a certain person,” entered into a recognisance together with Joseph Morris and the defendant, Robert Rdss, in the sum of 500 dollars each, on the 21st October, 1817, for the appearance of the said Hodgkinson at the office of the alderman on the following day, at four o’clock in the afternoon, at which time and place Hodgkinson made his appearance, but absconded while the alderman was writing an order for his commitment; upon which the alderman forfeited the recognisance. The recognisance was conditioned, “ for the defendant’s appearance,”' &c. at the office of the alderman.
    On the argument before the Court in Bank, two questions were made : ■
    1st. Whether the alderman had power to take the recognisance.
    2d. Whether the condition was not fulfilled by Hodgkinson^ appearance, although he afterwards absconded.
    
      C. J. Ingersoll, who argued for the Commonwealth,
    referred to 1 Chitti/s Cr. Law, 59, 60. 72, 73. 89. 90. 103. 105. 
      Commonwealth v.Emory, 2 Binn. 431.3 Burn’s Just. 3. Hawk h. 2. ch. 15. s. 84. Bac. Ab. Bail. L. 10 Mod. 152. Fortes. 358. g JnS(_ 159. 4 Jnst. 1/8.
    
      Solomons, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman,C. J.

It is not denied that the alderman had authority to inquire into this offence, and to commit the prisoner, admit him to bail, or discharge him, as circumstances might require. It is admitted also, that it has long been a general practice to take recognisances for the appearance of the prisoner before the alderman, from time to time, pending the examination. This practice is very much for the ease of persons under accusation, as many days may elapse before their examination is finished. In cases of murder, and other capital offences, where an alderman has no power to admit to bail, there may be some reason for denying him the power of taking a recognisance for appearance before himself. I give no opinion, however, upon such cases. But where he has power to bail, I see not why he may not also suffer the accused to go at large, under recognisance, until the examination is completed. And were it even doubtful, the practice, which is very humane, as well as convenient, would be entitled to great weight. I am, therefore, of opinion that the alderman had power to take the recognisance.

2d. The recognisance was entered in a short memorandum, as usual—the condition is, '■'■for defendant’s appearance, Spc. at my office the 22d inst. at 4 o’clock, P. M.” It was decided by this Court, in the Commonwealth v. Emory, 2 Binn. 431, that a short memorandum of this kind is sufficient ground for drawing up the recognisance in full form. By the words, defendant's appearance, tyc. I understand defendant’s appearance and not departing without leave; there is nothing else to which the Sfc. can reasonably be applied, and that is the usual form of recognisance. When the recognisance is taken, the condition is verbally repeated to the recognisors, by the alderman, at large, and they are asked, if they are content ? The memorandum is but a short statement of what was done. When the ¿Sfc. is inserted, it serves for a memorandum of the usual words, and not depart without leave. To understand it 30, is not to attribute to it more virtue than has been done in many other cases. Lord Coke’s authority may be vouched in support of the meaning ascribed to fyc. I have no doubt, that, in the present instance, it may fairly extend to not de- * , „T i ; i t r ■ parting without leave. Upon the whole, I am or opinion, that judgment should be entered for the Commonwealth.

Judgment for the Commonwealth.