90 Va. 356 | Va. | 1893
delivered the opinion of the court.
At the September term of said court the said Benjamin Allen “appeared,” as the record recites, in obedience to his recognizance and entered into a new recognizance in the sum of $500, with Elizabeth Payne and John Allen, his sureties, in the like sum of $500, conditioned for his personal appearance before the judge of this court on Friday next to answer the charge against him, and not to depart without the leave of the court,” &c.
On the said Friday, September 16, 1892, he appeared, pleaded not guilty, the evidence was partly heard, and the case adjourned over to the next morning.
When the jury was brought into court on the 17th day of September, 1892, the prisoner failed to appear; whereupon a scire facias.issued against the said Benjamin Allen and his sureties, returnable to the first day of the next term of the court.
On the 10th day of October, 1892, this scire facias was, on motion of the defendants, quashed, and the scire facias, which is assailed in this case, issued.
This scire facias is in the usual form, and states the_ conditions of the recognizance to be “ that if the said Benjamin Allen should personally appear before the judge of the county court for the said county, at the court-house thereof on Friday, September 16, 1892, to answer as of a felony, whereof he stands accused, and should not depart without the leave of the said court, then the said recognizance was to be void.”
At the December term the defendants demurred to the scire facias, pleaded nul tiel record, and answered. Each of these contentions having been determined against them, they obtained a writ of error to this court, and urge the same objections here.
These observations will also dispose of the next assignment of error that there was no such record. The variance between the language of the recognizance and the scire facias must be regarded as immaterial.
The third and last • assignment of error is the prisoner fulfilled the condition of the recognizance by merely appearing and pleading, and that the recognizance was thenceforth void- and of no effect. But this has so often been decided the other
We see no error in the judgment of the county court of Loudoun, and the same is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.