New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-14

a u
pI.CuARGING JUDGMENTS UroN FoRFEITkD RECoG-
HIzANCY:s IN CRIMINAL CAsEs-VIEws OF CHEF
JUSTICE DAILY REGARDING THE JUSTICE OF THE
BILL RECENTLY gLPOR1KD 70 THE LEGIsLA1URE-
IT'S EFFECT UPON THH CASE OF EX-ALDEMAN
CONAN.
The judiciary Committee has reported to
The Icgslature bill requiring the Court Of Common
Pleas to discharge any judgments upon forfeited recog'
ni,nces whs.e The DistictAttoncy shall certify that
The people are good condition for the prosecution
OF the persons Indicted they were when the rccos-
nEnees were forfeited Last evening Chief Justice DAILY
of the Court of Common Pleas in giving his views re-
tpectiDg the effect OF the bill 10 TRIBUNE reporter
said:
practice has arisen during the past year, in which
sn the ulgce OF the Court have participated Of dis
charging judgments upon cognizances on applications
C. which tie D.strictAto,1ey. has consented TO as
charge upon proof That the accused has either been sr
rendered BIZ tie bail has surrendered himself and
tered into recogizance, approved by the District
Attorney, that he would thereafter appear 10 be tried
upon the Indictment, and submit to the final
yud dement, sentence or order of the Court In The
ease OF the people Of the State OF NewIoTk against
Thomas Conan and his bondsman, Morgan Jones, the
question whether this practice correct aud afcr
careful examination Of the question: all Of the judges
were OF the opinion that 1t is not The important points
Of opinion Of the Chief Justice given below:
accused having once failed to appear the Judgment
the forfeiture of his rcooglzance will not be RENTED
upon his reception surrender until after he has been
tried, aud either conyices or acquitted The recog'z-
when IL is forfeited; and therefore, the accused is not
discharged though the bail upon the forfeiture OF
the principal continues amenabe 10 the law whenever
.e can be taken Petsrsdorf on Bail, 5l6). BY
;he lands ard property Of, the bail, when it
lad been estreated into the excheIuer but
Is forfeited %d and becomes ud @tn which upon
the defendants real estate When the fec9gnzapeS Was
less the principal Appeared and took hi. Tia and was
either coneea OF or aIe ia t pr "d WI IN
the law or Of the ohigee BY the act OF 9Th February,
aas created held by the Junior justice Of the supreme
ri every term distinct court with clerk and seal,
Cour of ExoheQuer enforcing RENTING fines and for
FIXTURES. In the words OF The statute II was among other
such fcrferes par, thereof and 10 discharge such
reccgnizance according to equity and Justice which act
Laws of isOI Chap 1856; and of 1913, Chap. 90. and
Chap lOt see !, and by The act Of 1878 Chap, 2s3 the
ferod upon them the like power relative the cOllec
ton aud remission Of ines and FORFEITED reeosiizancs
court Of and this was confirmed by the Re
The aSnF court EzSnsqac2 and this eon after
snoceeing to its powers III the exercise OF this ursc
by adjudged Ia the En;is! Court Of Exehequer;
and II it had not the propiety Of the mactlce.ae the
Vio IL followed The practice OF that court not 10 dis
charge upon surrender until the principal went
Det Potry e Hit. 123 There never was except where
fl was ndispensab eas in like The Schuylk Nav
To. agt. Farr "A Watts d Serg, 362laDy such practice
as substituting new retOgnizance for one estreaed and
:orfeited until the sent District Attorney introduced
Il, by acquiescing in such opphea atoms and CIV
ss h Heop hys lost mo- s 81 y ss one
the failure OF the bail ~ produce the principal; aud
he believes them 10 he good position prose
the principal upon the indictments they the
day that The rcoguhance was forfeited and that there
fore he gives his assent 10 the discharge Of the Judgment
on the IeoogniZance appears that the recOgnzance IL
his case was forfeited In Dec. 1873 that in Oct.
ASA Conan surrendered hinself and that new recog
aizance then it'll the District-Attorney's assent
taken for his further appearauce and that he has not yet
tried. In Rex Stancher % Price 26l the ptn
cipal after the forfeiture OF the recOgnizance was
Dttcd o. prison and yet the Court Of EXcbeqUer refused
60 forfeit the recOgDzancc, which with reference TO
che DistrCtAuorney's reasons, better situation To
the principals appearing and being tried for the Of
tense than te acceptance OF another recOgnlanee fOr Lis
appearance would have been.
The giving OF recogniZance docs not put the
Tle In good position they before the forfeit
le, for the accused having failed tn appear aud stand
Ills trial In fault; and the consequence Of that de-
saut Is that the judgment Ia rendered against the ball.
(Which IL lien bis lands III the judgment IL dis
charged upon the giving Of TecogniZance, the
rused may fail TO appear again, and another Judgment
the BAIL II be the same, have then parted with
his lands, or If he he another person he may not have
any IL security therefore for due vigilance the
part Of the BAIL that his Land is bound and may be ap
phcd upon the judgment, II he secure the a,
pearaDce Of his principal and the law clothes him with
Extraordinary powers for that purpose practice
The English courts will appear from the cases cited is
10 withhold the enforcement Of the forfeiture one
several terms, until trial can be had
When asked what the effect Of the bin wnl be- ift
passes Judge Daily said that 1t would annul the decision
In Comans case and compel the Court TO discharge Jnd
mcnts upon forfeited rccoizances on the ceItin
cate VI the DstrictAttorney.