Case Name: People v. Nooney
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-05-09
Citations: 19 N.Y.S. 134
Docket Number: 
Parties: People v. Nooney.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 19
Pages: 134–134

Head Matter:
People v. Nooney.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 9, 1892.)
Bail—Power of County Court to Remit Forfeiture of.
Code Grim. Proc. § 597, does not limit-the time within which forfeiture of bail can be remitted, and section 598 provides that a motion to remit can be granted “ only upon payment of the costs and expenses incurred in proceedings for enforcement of the forfeiture; ” and, read together, the sections imply that there is no restriction as to the time when the county court can make remission.
Appeal from Orange county court,
Indictment for assault against William Mooney. Thomas F. Farrell, surety for defendant, appeals from an order denying a motion to remit a forfeiture of bail for want of power of the court, and' because of the entry of judgment upon the bail bond.
Reversed.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
John W. Lyon, for appellant. M. H. Rirschberg, Dist. Atty., for the-People.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
We think the county court had power to remit the forfeiture of bail in this case. There seems to be no limit of time specified in section • 597 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and section 598 seems to imply that it can be remitted after proceedings to'enforce the forfeiture have been commenced, as it provides that such a motion can be granted, "only upon payment of the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings for the enforcement of-the forfeiture." Reading the two sections together, it seems plain that there is no restriction as to time when the county court can make the remission. Order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted.to county court for rehearing. All concur.