Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-03-25


At the May Term 1876, OF tae Circuit Court OF
Mourcne, the plaintiff in error and oae HeasIey en-
tered IntO recognizBcGe IA tAe sum Of fftes hun
| dred dollars for the appearances Of one MorVss ~
tbs Eex' term the Circuit Court, 70 wis: Septem-
Der term. 1885, to answer a charge .. for passipg
eouaterfst bank bills, Uf vhish he stood Indicted
in said Court Morgan fsiedto appear and A iulp
ment nisi was rendered against his bail
Two writs Of scire faeiAs were Issued thereon,
both of which We5e servel the plaintiff in error
and returned, not found" rs % Hensey Divine
pleaded, among other matters not necessary 10 be
noticed, in substance that after their undertaking
for his appearance, and before the nr Term Al
which he was required 70 appear M-rgsn was ar
rested IN henderson county, North Carolina upou A
charge of felony committed 10 said couaiy aud
Stale, and was IN custody Of the Sheriff upVn said
charge OF felony Ct the Ii@e the forfeiture ia The
selTe Iaeias mentioned was taken against his bail
whereby the appearance Of said Morgan was pre-
vented, &C.
To this plea there was demurrer, which wss sus-
talaec; and this Is assigned for error. The iudg-
ment on the demurrer was correct. The plea is bal
FIRST IL may be true alleged in the plea that az
the time the judgment HIsi rendered against Il
oalL Morgan may have been in confinement III
another state, aad it may also be true that before
the hnal judgment the scire faeias, which was a.
the January term. 1885, he rnay have been dis
charged, and at liberty 10 appear.
If It were conceded, therefore, that tho arrest Of
Morgrn, IN another Stste, might eCnsiiufe good
defense Tor tbs bail the plea is essentially dsiee
tive; because It does not show that The bail might
Eot have surrendered him any time subsequent to
Judgment sisi aad before fnal judgment Sscsnd-
ly; But We are Of the opi0i5n that the arrest and
imprisonment Of the principal in another State, or
G0sernmeAt, for al offence committed 10 the latter
place, after the reeogoizsGce entered into here is
no excuse for The failure Of the bail TO surrender
HIM at the line and place stipulated In legal con-
temptation, uPOl the Tec0gnizaDce being entered
into, the priAeiPal delivered into the friendly
custody OF his securities, instead Of beiag commit
ted 70 prison, 81 Com. SOL The suretiss had
eonTol Of his person; they were bound, at their pr
Ia TO keep hun within the jurisdicti0n aud 70 have
his persou ready 10 surrender w5en demanded II
appreLensiye for their own safety, they had the
right TO arrest, and commit him for the coming
term, 10 answer the charges Of which he had beea
indicted, they bad voluntarily nader akea 10 10
And If tney n'gligeody permitted him o go beyond
their reach, IL Was "a ir folly, sad they must
abide the consequences
The casa of The S a. rs Allen, Humph 25S 10
which have bsea referred, is very different from
this Ia IA 81 Gaze IL was very prorerly held that
inasauch as the State, through the nciioa OF tue
EXccurIv Department. had taken the principal out
of he hands CT the sures and deliver d bin 10 the
authorities Of fJregn Sta'e thereby placing IL be-
yond the power of the surses to surt ender b. the
State was pieeludsd from exlcfiog the forfeiture in
the taee OF its OEu act Ia tho case before as the
failure of the suretes 10 surrender their principal
was, in view Of TIE law The rests Of their oFa reg
lgenee or eonnivauee in suffering heir rrincipal
to 90 beyond the jursjie ion OF tae Court and from
under their control. Judgment affirmed
McKISSEy
A true copy Attest: C W NEnsos. Clerk.