Case ID: app-dc_39/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Shepard", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. ALLEN ET AL.
    Criminal Law; Penalties; Remission or Forfeited Recognizance.
    "Where one, charged with grand larceny entered into a recognizance and' left the District of Columbia, failing to return thereto for trial until duly extradited, when he was brought back, tried and sentenced, he thereby wilfully defaulted in his recognizance, and the court taking it has no power under sec. 1020, Rev. Stat., U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 719, allowing remission of penalties where there has been no default of the party charged, to remit to the surety therein the penalty forfeited.
    No. 2452.
    Submitted November 4, 1912.
    Decided December 30, 1912.
    Hearing on an appeal by tbe United States, from an order of tbe Supreme Court, of tbe District of Columbia, sitting as a Criminal Court, vacating a judgment forfeiting a recognizance.
    
      Reversed.
    
    Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.
    
      Mr. C. R. Wilson, United States District Attorney, and Mr. James A. Oobb, for tbe appellant.
    
      Mr. M. W. Sullivan,' for tbe appellees.
   Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court:

This case was argued and submitted with No. 2451 (United States v. Von Jenny, ante, 377).

It appears that Alice Allen, alias Redd, was under indictment in- tbe supreme court of tbe District at tbe October term, 1908, for grand larceny, and entered into a recognizance in tbe sum of $200 with William J. Howard, as surety, in tbe usual form, for ber appearance. On December 1Y, 1908, tbe principal cognizor baying failed to appear, judgment was entered forfeiting tbe recognizance; and a bench warrant was issued for ber arrest. She was arrested in tbe city of Philadelphia, and, after -extradition proceedings duly bad, was delivered to tbe marshal ■of tbe District, who held ber in custody. January 13, 1909, she was produced in court, pleaded guilty to petit larceny, and was sentenced.

On April 26, 1912, tbe surety, Howard, moved tbe court “to satisfy of record tbe forfeiture.”

There was no allegation in the motion of any ground of relief; nor was there an affidavit.of facts accompanying tbe same.

The supreme court of the District has three terms each year, and this motion was made more than three years after the forfeiture of the recognizance.

June 28, 1912, an order was entered granting the motion and setting aside the forfeiture, from which the United States have appealed.

The facts disclosed by the record bring the case within the decision in No. 2451, and for the reasons given in the opinion delivered therein, the judgment is reversed. Reversed.