State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 22 October 1909 |
| Citation | 65 S.E. 982,84 S.C. 21 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Anderson County; Geo E. Prince, Judge.
Proceedings by the State against W. W. Williams to estreat a recognizance. From an adverse judgment, the state appeals. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Julius E. Boggs and Saml M. Wolfe, for the State. Martin & Earle for respondent.
On September 25, 1907, the respondent became surety on the recognizance of Fannie Bridges for her appearance in the court of a magistrate. The condition of the recognizance, in so far as the questions decided are affected, was as follows "That said Fannie Bridges shall personally appear before the court of Magistrate B. F. Wilson, in the court aforesaid, in Anderson county, on the 2d day of October at 10 a. m., then and there to answer to a bill of indictment to be preferred against Fannie Bridges for adultery, and to do and receive what shall be enjoined by the court, and not depart the court without license," etc. The defendant appeared on the 2d of October, but the hearing was continued indefinitely by agreement of the attorneys representing the prosecution and defense. The case was called on December 10th, but the defendant failed to appear, and it was again continued by consent of the attorneys. It was again called on December 18th, and the defendant again failed to appear. The attorneys for both sides announced themselves ready to proceed with the hearing, but the magistrate refused to proceed in the absence of the defendant, and sent the recognizance to the court of general sessions to be estreated. A rule was issued against the respondent requiring him to show cause why the recognizance should not be estreated. He made return, setting forth, in substance, the following grounds: (1) That the prosecution was not bona fide, but was commenced solely for the purpose of forcing the defendant to remain within the jurisdiction pending the decision of her right to the custody of her child; (2) that the recognizance was void, because the condition was that the principal should appear in a magistrate's court, and answer a bill of indictment to be preferred against her for adultery, whereas magistrates' courts have no jurisdiction to prefer such a bill, or to hear answer thereto; (3) that the condition required the principal to appear and "to do and receive what shall be enjoined by the court," which relates to the sentence, whereas magistrates' courts have no jurisdiction to impose sentence in such cases; (4) that the magistrate had no jurisdiction of the offense charged, because the defendant resided in Oconee county during the whole time referred to in the information and warrant; (5) that the information stated no offense; (6) that the case was continued on October 2d, without the consent of the surety; (7) that it does not appear that the defendant was called at the door of the courthouse, or at the office of the magistrate; (8) that the state had waived its right to require the personal appearance of the defendant by announcing itself ready to proceed with the hearing in her absence, and by arguing her demurrer to the information and warrant, and because an appeal was pending from the order of the magistrate overruling said demurrer; (9) that the defendant had waived her right to be present, and had appeared by attorney; (10) that it does not appear that any judgment was obtained against the defendant, and return of non est inventus thereon. The circuit judge held that the court of general sessions has no jurisdiction to estreat a recognizance conditioned for the appearance of a party in a magistrate's court. He also held that the continuance of the cause on October 2d, without the consent of the surety, in effect made a new contract, and the surety was thereby released, and he discharged the rule. The other grounds set up by the respondent were held to be insufficient. From the order of the circuit court the state appealed; and the respondent gave notice that he would rely, in this court, upon the grounds which had been held insufficient to sustain the judgment of the circuit court.
By sections 84 and 85 of the Criminal Code of 1902 jurisdiction is conferred upon the court of general sessions to estreat recognizances for the appearance of any person at any court of criminal jurisdiction within this state.
Those sections are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial