Mattison, Irish v. McGregor v. Bugbee, 381 | Rolfe, Treasurer of Vt. v. Middletown Cong. Soc., Bigelow v. 370 Russell v. Fillmore, 9 622 130 Miles, Smith et al. v. 245 Pinney et al. v. Fellows et al., Parkhurst v. Edwards, Passumpsic Turn. Co., Barnet v. Pearce et al. Holbrook et al. v. Peck v. Thompsons, Pierson v. Clayes et al. Pingrey v. Watkins, Plumley v. Marsh, Powers v. Southgate et al. 618 State v. Munger, 290 R Tharp, Tharp v. 105 REPORTS. CHITTENDEN COUNTY. JANUARY TERM, 1843. PRESENT HON. CHARLES K. WILLIAMS, Chief Justice. A recognizance entered into before the county court, by a person in custody on a criminal charge, that the respondent shall make his personal appearance before the court then sitting, and remain from time to time, and from day to day, and shall answer, and shall abide the orders and decrees of the court, and not depart without leave, is a legal and valid recognizance. SCIRE FACIAS on a recognizance entered into before the county court for the county of Chittenden, by the defendant and one Henry Hand as sureties for John Williams, in custody on a warrant from said court. The declaration having set forth an indictment against Williams-its return into court, and his arrest, and detention in custody, upon a warrant issued thereon, alleged that: "On the 4th day of September, 1839, at Burlington aforesaid, by order and direction of the county court aforesaid, 'the said John Williams, as principal, and Jacob Rolfe and 'Henry Hand, as sureties, came personally before the judges ' of the court aforesaid, as by the record of said county court 'will more fully appear, and, in open court, acknowledged 'themselves jointly and severally indebted to the treasurer VOL. XV. 3. R. VOL. . 2 Treasurer of v. Rolfe. CHITTENDEN, ' of the state of Vermont in the sum of four hundred dollars, January, 1843. 'to be levied of their, and each of their goods and chattels, 'lands and tenements, and, for want thereof, upon their and ' each of their bodies, upon the condition following, to wit, that if the said John Williams, being charged, as specified ' in the said bill of indictment, shall make his personal ap'pearance before the county court then sitting at Burlington 'aforesaid, and remain from time to time, and from day to 'day, and then and there answer to such matters and things as 'should then and there be objected to him in that behalf, and 'there abide such order and decree of said court, as said court 'should make in the premises, and not depart without leave ' of said court, then the said recognizance should be void 'and of no effect, but otherwise it should be and remain in 'full force and effect;-which said recognizance and the 'condition thereof being duly certified in open court, by the ' clerk of said court, and was duly received in the said county court, as by the record of said recognizance and the con'dition thereof, now remaining in the said county court at 'Burlington, manifestly appears. And although the said John Williams was, by order of the said court, publicly 'called in said court, to make his personal appearance before 'said court, to answer to such matters and things as should 'be objected to him in that behalf, and although the said 'Jacob Rolfe and the said Henry Hand were, also, three 'times publicly called in, and by order of, said court, to have 'the said John Williams before the said court according to 'the condition of the recognizance, yet, the said John Wil'liams neglected to appear before the said court, and the 'said Jacob Rolfe and the said Hand refused to have the 'said John Williams before the said court, but suffered the 'said recognizance to become forfeited," &c. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and judgment was rendered by the county court that the declaration was sufficient. The defendant excepted. Lyman & Marsh, and Charles D. Kasson for defendant. I. The recognizance is void for requiring more than the law. Treasurer v. Seaver et al. 7 Vt. R. 485. 7 Pick. R. 233. 9 Con. R. 350. In taking the recognizance, the court were in the exercise |