Case Name: People v. Gillman
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-12-10
Citations: 12 N.Y.S. 40
Docket Number: 
Parties: People v. Gillman.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 12
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
People v. Gillman.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 10,1890.)
Bail—Bond—Sufficiency.
A bail-bond, which does not specify any charge which the principal is to answer, is void; and the defect cannot be supplied, by testimony.
Appeal from circuit court, Dutchess county.
Action upon an undertaking of bail against Frederick R. Gillman, the surety therein. The undertaking was a printed form, and the blank space therein for designating the crime was not filled in. At the trial, testimony was admitted that such omission was unintentional and accidental, and that the purpose of the undertaking was fully explained to the surety at the time he signed it. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Argued before Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
Herman Frank, for appellant. Martin Heermance, Dist. Atty., for respondent.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
We think the bail-bond in question in this action is void, as it does not specify any charge which the principal is to answer. The authorities are uniform upon this subject. Although it is not necessary to state the charge with great particularity, it must indicate the offense with which the principal is charged, and which the bail undertakes, he will appear and answer. People v. Bundle, 6 Hill, 506; People v. Blankman, 17 Wend. 252; People v. Graham, 1 Parker, Crim. R. 141. Ho charge having been stated in the bond, we think it was error to allow the defect to be supplied by further proof. Such testimony may be given to explain contracts, but not to enforce the undertaking of the surety after its alleged breach, and the court is simply called upon to determine what, if any, liability exists. As the surety did not undertake that his principal would appear to answer any charge, there has been no breach. The judgment must therefore be reversed.