7 Fla. 40 | Fla. | 1857
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A motion is made to dismiss the appeal in this case, on the ground that those who have signed their names as securities to the appeal bond are prohibited by rule of Court, from occupying this relation to any suitor. It is not controverted that one of them is an attorney of the Circuit Court, and the other the Sheriff of the county of Gadsden. The rule of Court is to this effect: “No attorney or other officer of the Court shall enter himself or be taken as bail in any criminal case, or as security in attachment, appeal or writ of error, or other proceeding in Court, on pain of being considered in contempt and of having the proceeding dismissed on account thereof.” Buies of the Circuit-Court, No. 3.
It is very clear that the bond is objectionable, for the-reasons stated, and by the plain terms and spirit of the-
The object of all this is to secure good conduct from them, to promote the great ends of justice, to prevent injury and wrong to the citizen. Now, what object is there in this rule, and is not the end and purpose of it the same ? A very slight consideration of it will show.
A suitor of the Court is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing, and to every facility consistent with legal provision for tko assertion and maintenance of his rights, or their
Such a rule has existed with the sanction of the Legislature, and without question from the earliest period of the Territory. As early as the year 1654, it was a rule of the English Courts that no Attorney shall bo bail in any action or suit depending therein — Tidd’s Practice, 270 ; nor is he good bail who has received verbal promise of indemnity by attorneys of defendant. (Ibid. 292.)
This rule is not prohibited by the Constitution of the State, has its foundation in right and propriety and should be strictly observed and enforced. The case will be dismissed with costs.