State v. . Houston
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Scire Facia*, upon a recognizance alleged to have been forfeited, tried before his Honor Judge Schenck, at August Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of MeckleNbubg county. The defendant, W. H. II.
Read the full summary
Scire Facia*, upon a recognizance alleged to have been forfeited, tried before his Honor Judge Schenck, at August Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of MeckleNbubg county. The defendant, W. H. II. Houston, was arrested to answer a bill of indictment found against him at Fall Term, 1874, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, and lie with tlio other defendants entered into the following recognizance : S“ Ü I Whereas W. II. 11. Houston has been arrested on a charge of the State upon a bill of indictment for forgery; Now therefore, we the said W. TI. II. Houston, as principal, and W. A Trott, E. A.…
1Opinion of the CourtIIeade, J.
1. That the bond taken in this ease is good as a reo< gnizuvoe for the appearance of the principal defendant. See case between the same parties at this term; and State v. Elney, 2 Winst. 71.
2. A recognizance for the appearance of the defendant at the next term of the court to bo held for a given county ii valid, and binds the defendant to appear at the next term, nd at the courthouse; although neither time nor place 1 e sje i-fically named; because every one knows, or is presi med to know the time and place of holding the court. Tut if the recognizance njjeoífy time and place, the defendant…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State v. MesserCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- State v. MesserCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001