State v. Young
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Report. Scire facias on a recognizance, with sureties in the sum of $3000, entered into before the judge of the police court of Rockland, in this county, for the personal .appearance of one James Rouse, at the Oct. term, 1863, of the S. J. Court at Rockland, then and there to answer to the charge of an assault with an intent to kill.
Read the full summary
On Report. Scire facias on a recognizance, with sureties in the sum of $3000, entered into before the judge of the police court of Rockland, in this county, for the personal .appearance of one James Rouse, at the Oct. term, 1863, of the S. J. Court at Rockland, then and there to answer to the charge of an assault with an intent to kill. At the April term, 1866, the counsel for the defendants filed a motion that the police judge, before whom the recognizance was taken, have leave to amend the recognizance by adding the following facts, and to prove that they were consistent with the truth : —…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
The first question to be determined is whether the recognizance can be legally amended, and if so, what the effect of the proposed amendment will be.
Undoubtedly the recognizance may be legally amended. In Com. v. Field, (11 Allen, 488,) a recognizance was amended three years after it was taken, and after a suit had been commenced on it. In Means v. Trout, (16 Serg. & Rawle,) Chief Justice Gibson said that justices of the peace manifest such a remarkable inaptitude in these matters, and return so many defective recognizances, that not to allow them to be amended would be attended with an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bream v. SpanglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walker v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1926
- Haney v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
- City & County of San Francisco v. HartnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Rupert v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894