Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-10-24

Seire faeias, on forfeited recognizanee to which
the demurrer Of defendant vas sustained, and Rp-
peal to this court by the State
The entry upon the minutes Of the Brownsville
Circuit Court, 81 the March Term, 1853 which en-
braces The reeognizsoee is in the following words
State Of Tennessee vs.. Horace R. ouinby-Murdsr.
This day appeared the Attorney General and the
defendant in proper person, aud this cause is con-
tinusd for want Of time 20 try said cause, and there
upon came defendant and also comes with defend
ant Susan Quinby and both Of whom acknO Fledg-
ed t. Themselves indebted to the State Of Tennessee,
rs follows, viz The said defendant in the sum Of
Eve tboUsaud dollars, and the said Susan Quinby
10 the sum of five thousand dollars, to be levied,
SO. rt-5-t-
"But to be void if the said defendant makes his
personal sppearsne At the Cour house. in the own
of Brownsville in the unity # Haywood State OF
Tennessee, on the % NJ nd.y in July Dext-thea
ana there 10 an'Wer the SAFE Of Tennessee upon
bill of indie meut for murder and not depart with
Out lesve Of hs-Court, frst had and obtained, 3"
At the July Term Of the CiJcuit Court in Browns
vile, on the l5rh day of the month, the defendant
faihr TO satend, forfeiture was taken upon the
Tecog izEroe, and judgment ni 81 was entered, and
this sci ia issued.
Il is Unlisted that no judgment can be properly
Fend red sganst the defendant on the recogniEance
beoause i does not appear the face Of the Teeog
n:atDce itself or elsewhere, before what court or
tribunal the defendant was RECON zed to appear.
True, it does not appear 10 msuy words; but he
is TO spi ear a. The Court house IN Brownsville, Hay
wood CO., Tenn Cd the % MoDd y in July next to
answer a charge Of murder, and mot TO depart
without leave OF the Court" The place aud time of
Appearance sad the object Of that appearances, viz
TO snsser charge Of murder, are a l expressed.
AN this makes il certain that he was to aPPe a.
q Circuit CJu-t, to be held a. III At 'ime-in that
place. as if il had been s. exercised in words. It
would require great strain Of legal and com
sense 10 the defendant from her liability,
and by that give impunty to crime, aud favor the
escape Of offenders. This is not the pulley Of the
law, inclination Of the Courts at this day. Il
certain 70 every intent and not capable Of mis-
construction The only objection Is, that it did not
state thai the appearance be before the Judge
&c. OF in court then and there 70 be held; but the
recogniSanee must be all takeL together, al il says
to answer a charge Of murder on the day and place
designated, and 'not to depart without eve OF the
Court" 1t would be the merest technically to bold
that his IS equivalent to The words required by
the objection the argument for The defendant very
ingenious and plausible In this point, but not sound
as We think.
The case Of Grigsby vs.. the State, icy Yerger, is
very analogous 10 this, but not precisely the same
in the facts Ia that case, the recoguiEsnce bound
the defendant to make bis personal appearance here
on q day fixed, bu no place was desgnst' d, as in
his case; neither the place the COUFl was named
in that case but here the plsce and time fixed,
and from that place the defendant was rot to depart
without leave of the Court, and al that time and
murder which was in the same entry that confined
over the case to the time fXei for The appearance
But whether distinction between the two cases
can be successfully made or not We are now acting
under 8 different dspensation these questions,
to the constantly increasing inclination Of the Courts
to avoid these Judicial pardons Of offenders upon
any teehnicalities without reference to merits The
Legislature by their act Of l35t, CD. 254 abolished
the distinction between statutory and common law
bonds aud recogniz Ances and provided that the lat
ter should be equivalent 10 the former Here there
is an obligation Of record entered into with the
State to the effect, that upon the condition the Slate
will relieve the defendant IN that from custody,
under a charge Of murder, they will pay a penalty
of Eve thousand doll rs IN the event he fails sp
pear at The place designated, The day named, 10
answer the charge. Now, whether there a
Court there on that day not, 1t not per ect
common law obligation? If so, then il good
statutory obligation, if these terms will apply to
such case.
The judgment on the demurrer viii be reversed
and the judgment against the defendant be made
final, upon tue Sctre fac ids. CARUTHERs.
Test: NJ. D. WELCH, Clerk.