Marr v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court. IIoN. E. D. Ham, Circuit Judge. . We submit: That tlie instrument entered into before the sheriff, was not a recognizance, but simply a bond, and that no forfeiture could be had, nor could a scire facias issue upon it: Hicks v. The State; and if it were a recognizance, it is not in the form prescribed by the statute. See Gould’s Digest JfiO, chap. 52, sees. 59, 60; nor was it acknowledged, 5 Jacobs, S98; 2 Saund.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court. IIoN. E. D. Ham, Circuit Judge. . We submit: That tlie instrument entered into before the sheriff, was not a recognizance, but simply a bond, and that no forfeiture could be had, nor could a scire facias issue upon it: Hicks v. The State; and if it were a recognizance, it is not in the form prescribed by the statute. See Gould’s Digest JfiO, chap. 52, sees. 59, 60; nor was it acknowledged, 5 Jacobs, S98; 2 Saund. Id. p 8 i n (<§.) It was not a record, and could not be a recognizance. See Hicks v. State 3 Ark., 313; Gray v. The State 5 Ark., 266; Stale v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGrREGG, J.
It appears from the record that a capias issued upon an indictment, filed in tbe Scott circuit court, against Allen Marr, for arson, upon which he was arrested by the sheriff of said county, and to procure his release from custody, he, his co-appellants and William C. Gibson, on the 25th of July, 1368, entered into a recognizance, bound in the sum of one thousand dollars, reciting therein, his arrest upon a capias, the charge against him, that he was to appear before the judge of said court, at the court house in said county, on the 5th Monday after the 4-th Monday in August, 1868, and then…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. HallowaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pope v. Board of Com'rs of Oklahoma Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915