Case Name: The State against Augustine Buyck
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1804
Citations: 2 Bay 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State against Augustine Buyck.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
The State against Augustine Buyck.
Columbia,
1804.
A person accused of for» geiy, and ad» mitted to baila not entitled to his discharge under the ha-beas corpus act, from, the prosecution at the 2d courts becausehewas not in actual confinement; though if he had been confined In prison, the cou'-t would have admitted him to bail, if no bill had been found agaia& him.
SUSPICION of forgery. Richland district. Motion to reverse decision of circuit court.
The defendant had been arrested and taken up on suspicion of forgery, at the instance of the comptroller-general, on behalf of the state ; but was admitted to bail on his recognisance, with securities to appear and answer at the then next court of general sessions of -the peace, to be held in Richland district, to the charge made against him. No bill of indictment was found against him, either at the Srst or second court after he was bound to answer, owing, as v/as alleged, to the non-attendance of the witnesses on the part of the state. On the last day of the second court, a motion was made for his discharge from the prosecution, and that his recognisance, and that of his sureties, might be delivered up and cancelled. When, after argument, the presiding Judge (Bay) refused to discharge him from. the prosecution; observing, at the same time, that if ha had been in confinement in prison, he would not have hesitated, under the fth clause of the habeas corpus act, to have discharged him on bail. And as the witnesses for the state had not appeared at the second court, he ordered the case to be continued over till the nest term.
The present was therefore a motion to reverse the decision of the circuit court, and to order the defendant to be discharged | but the judges, after due consideration, refused the motion, on the ground that a defendant is not entitled, as a matter of right, to his discharge from a criminal prosecution, if he is not indicted and tried at the second court after his commitment. The fth clause of the habeas corpus act evidently alluded to persons who were within the four walls of a prison, that they should be discharged from their confinement on bail, or on their own recognisances, according to the nature and circumstance of every case. That this clause did not relate to persons who were not actually in custody or imprisoned, or who were out on bail.

Opinion:
With respect to continuing causes, the court observed, that in many cases where the witnesses for the state could not attend at the first or second court, there might be a failure ©f public justice, if tbis was not done: and for that reason it had been the constant practice to do so; but at the same time it was the duty of the court to take care that criminal causes should not be unreasonably protracted or delayed.
Rule to reverse the decision of the circuit court die-dharged.