Waugh v. the People
| Decision Date | 30 June 1856 |
| Citation | 17 Ill. 561,1856 WL 5377,7 Peck 561 |
| Parties | JAMES WAUGH, Appellant,v.THE PEOPLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
17 Ill. 561
1856 WL 5377 (Ill.)
7 Peck (IL) 561
JAMES WAUGH, Appellant,
v.
THE PEOPLE, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June Term, 1856.
Where a sheriff, in a criminal proceeding, takes bail for a larger sum than is directed by the court, the recognizance is a nullity.
CITED: 18 Ill. 406; 83 Ill. 335.
THE scire facias, in this case, recites that appellant and one J. Fittsher came before S. G. Paddock, sheriff of said county--Fittsher having been arrested upon a capias issued from the Circuit Court, for the crime of larceny--and the said Waugh and Fittsher executed and delivered to said sheriff, a bond or recognizance, whereby they severally acknowledged themselves to
[17 Ill. 562]
owe and be indebted to the People of the State of Illinois, the sum of two hundred dollars each, to be paid to the People if default should be made in the condition following, to wit:“Whereas, the said sheriff has this day arrested the said Joseph Fittsher, upon a writ of capias ad respondendum, issued from the Circuit Court of said county, for and concerning the crime of petit larceny, with which he stands charged, as by a certain bill of indictment preferred against him by the grand jury of said county, filed in our said court in that behalf, appears.
Now, therefore, if the said Joseph Fittsher shall well and truly be and appear on the first day of the next term of our said Circuit Court, to be holden at the court house in Princeton, in and for said county, on the second Monday, in the month of January next, A. D. 1856, then and there, in our said court, to answer unto the said bill of indictment, and abide the order of the court, and not depart the court without leave, then this recognizance to be void; otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.”
Which said bond was approved by the said sheriff, and filed of record in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of said Bureau county, on the fourteenth day of January, A. D. 1856.
The scire facias then recites that at the next term of the Circuit Court, Fittsher did not appear, and his default was entered, and that a judgment was rendered in the following form: “It is therefore considered by the court that the People of the State of Illinois have and recover of the said Joseph Fittsher and James Waugh, the said sum of one hundred dollars, the amount of the penalty in the said recognizance, and the court further considers that a scire facias be issued,” &c. The scire facias commands the defendants to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Owens v. Fraser
... ... Folsom, 26 Me ... 209; Com. v. Greene, 12 Mass. 1; State v ... Glass, 9 Ia. 325; State v. Gorley, 2 Ia. 52; ... Pate v. People, 15 Ill. 221; State v. Inman, 7 ... Blackf. (Ind.) 225. (2) Consolidation may not be made so ... as to oust a court of jurisdiction. "Whenever ... the prescribed conditions is without authority and is ... void." 3 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 689; ... Waugh v. People, 17 Ill. 561; Roberts v ... State, 34 Kan. 151; State v. Roberts, 37 Kan ... 438; Barringer v. State, 27 Tex. 553; Neblett v ... ...
-
People v. Am. Sur. Co.
... ... ( Roberts v. State (1885) 34 Kan. 151, 8 P. 246.) There is even older precedent holding that a bail bond for a sum less than court-ordered is not void ( Chumasero v. State (1857) 18 Ill. 405 ) but agreeing that a bond in an amount greater than fixed by a court is ( Waugh v. State (1856) 17 Ill. 561 ).Upon reflection, San Francisco v. Hartnett gives only momentary pause. There, a bond was successfully defended against forfeiture because the amount was set by a court clerk, not a judicial officer. ( 1 Cal.App. 652, 653654, 82 P. 1064.) Clearly, that is not what ... ...
-
Holker v. Hennessey
... ... each by order entered of record, the sheriff had absolutely ... no authority to take bail in any less or different sum ... Waugh v. People, 17 Ill. 561; State v ... McCowin, 24 W.Va. 623; Nicholson v. State, 2 ... Ga. 323; State v. Wininger, 81 Ind. 51; State v ... Watson, ... ...
-
Mckindley v. Rising
...the bail bond shall be “in a penalty double the sum for which bail is required.” Jennings v. Sledge, 3 Kelly, 128; Waugh v. The People, 17 Ill. 561; 20 Ill. 152, and 16 Ill. 347, above cited. CATON, C. J. This was an action on the case for a tort, and that provision of the constitution whic......