Case Name: United States v. Robert Clark
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1835-03
Citations: 4 Cranch 506
Docket Number: 
Parties: United States v. Robert Clark.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 4
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
United States v. Robert Clark.
In an indictment against a justice of the peace for taking insufficient bail in a criminal case, it is not necessary to state in what respects the bail was insufficient; nor to set out the security taken; nor to aver that the defendant ordered the offender to be discharged from the arrest. Motion to quash refused.
This was an indictment for corruptly taking “insufficient security,” for the appearance of George Milburn, who was arrested on a capias ad respondendum, and in custody of the marshal upon an indictment for keeping “a certain gaming-table called a faro-bank,” (against the form of the Act of Congress of the 2d of March, 1831, [4 Stat. at Large, 448,] which makes it a penitentiary offence,) whereby the said George Milburn was released from the custody of the marshal, and escaped; and also by means whereof he did not appear at the said court, and therein made default, and hath not since appeared to be dealt with according to law, to the great hinderance of public justice, in contempt of the laws, and against the peace and government of the United States.
The counsel for the defendant moved the Court to quash the indictment.
1. Because it does not state in what respects the security taken was .insufficient; whether it was insufficient because the sum was t.oo small, or because the persons taken as bail were insufficient to answer the amount of the recognizance, or “because the form in which the security was taken was insufficient; and because it does not set out the security takenj so that the Court can judge whether it was regularly taken, and in an amount adequate to the offence, and in due form.
2. Because it does not aver that the defendant ordered Milburn to be discharged from arrest.

Opinion:
CRanch, C. J.
Upon comparing this indictment with the form of an indictment for a similar offence in 2 Chitty's Cr. Law, 244, the Court is of opinion that it is in substance a good indictment, and is sufficiently certain to require the defendant to plead to it.
The motion to quash it is, therefore, overruled. The other indictment against the same defendant for taking insufficient security in the case of Henry Miller, is even more full and formal than the other ; and the motion to quash it is also overruled. Thrus-ton, J., not sitting, as he was not present at the argument.