Case ID: f-cas_27/html/1356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BENEDICT, District Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 16,410.
    UNITED STATES v. STRICKER.
    [12 Blatchf. 389.] 
    
    Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    Dec. 21, 1874.
    Forfeited Recognizances—Motion to Remit— Practice.
    An action having been brought on a forfeited recognizance, and a motion being made, under section 1020 of the Revised Statutes, to remit the forfeiture, on the ground that the party bound to appear was, when called, in the custody of a state officer under a warrant issue! out of a court of the state, in a civil action, held, that the motion must be denied, on the ground that the question could be best determined, on the trial of the action.
    This was a motion [against Samuel Strieker], made under section 1020 of the Revised Statutes, to remit the penalty of a forfeited recognizance, on the ground that the party bound to appear was, when called, in the custody of a state officer under a'warrant issued out of a court of the state, on a criminal charge.
    Thomas Harland, for the motion, cited Caldwell v. Com., 14 Grat. 698; U. S. v. Feely [Case No. 15,082]; People v. Bartlett, 3 Hill, 570.
   BENEDICT, District Judge,

denied the motion, upon the ground that the question could be best determined on the trial of the action which had been brought upon the forfeited recognizance.