Dale v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 89 — Forfeiture op Bail Bond 1. The sureties in the bond were deprived by the pardon of the right to re-arrest the accused and surrender him to the court, as they had a right to do before the pardon was granted under the provisions of section 98 of the Criminal Code; and having been deprived of this right, they should not he held liable.
Read the full summary
Case 89 — Forfeiture op Bail Bond 1. The sureties in the bond were deprived by the pardon of the right to re-arrest the accused and surrender him to the court, as they had a right to do before the pardon was granted under the provisions of section 98 of the Criminal Code; and having been deprived of this right, they should not he held liable. Little v. Commonwealth, 3 Bush, 22; Commonwealth v. Radford, 2 Duvall, 9. 2. A pardon not only releases the punishment but blots out the guilt; now if the sureties are held liable on the bail bond they will have a right of action -for re-imbursement…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE WHITE
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Azariah Dale was indicted by the grand jury of Lewis county for a felony, and being permitted to give bail in the ■sum of $200 for his-appearance to answer said charge in the Lewis Circuit Court, the appellants, Dale and Pollitt, became his sureties, with the usual covenants and conditions, for-*613•the appearance of said Azariah Dale in the circuit court to answer said charge.
At the September term, 1896, the case was called for trial aud a jury empaneled and sworn, and thereupon appellants appeared and consented to remain bound on the bond during…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Weatherwax v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- State v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. FedricoSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Tinkle v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959