Proseck v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to tbe District Court of Cuyahoga county. On the hearing before a j’ustice of the peace of a complaint in bastardy against Jedlicka, he was required to and did, on August 18,1876, enter into a recognizance in the sum of $500, with Kutchta and Proseck as sureties, conditioned that he should “ personally appear before the court of common pleas, to be holden in and for the county aforesaid, on the first day of the term thereof, and continue from day to day, and then and…
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court of Cuyahoga county. On the hearing before a j’ustice of the peace of a complaint in bastardy against Jedlicka, he was required to and did, on August 18,1876, enter into a recognizance in the sum of $500, with Kutchta and Proseck as sureties, conditioned that he should “ personally appear before the court of common pleas, to be holden in and for the county aforesaid, on the first day of the term thereof, and continue from day to day, and then and there answer unto a complaint of bastardy made by Barbara Miller against him, and abide the order of the court thereon.”…
1Opinion of the CourtOkey, C. J.
1. The statute requiring justices of the peace to recognize the accused to appear at the “ next term,” and the word next being omitted from the recognizance, it is insisted that the instrument is a nullity. If the condition in a recognizance be ambiguous or uncertain as to the time or place the accused is to appear, such recognizance is void. The State v. Johnson, 13 Ohio, 176. Such an infirmity cannot be cured by parol evidence. Crippen v. The State, 1 Ohio St. 399. But, while it is the duty of the magistrate in all cases to strictly pursue the statute, it is by no means indispensable to the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mooney v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
- Clark v. PettyOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- Brite v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- Kellogg v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- State v. BradleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1820