Case No. 16,410.

UNITED STATES v. STRICKER.

[12 Blatchf. 389.]¹

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 21, 1874.

FORFEITED RECOGNIZANCES—MOTION TO REMIT—PRACTICE.

An action having been brought on a forfeited recognizance, and a motion being made, under section 1020 of the Revised Statutes, to remit the forfeiture, on the ground that the party bound to appear was, when called, in the custody of a state officer under a warrant issued out of a court of the state, in a civil action, held, that the motion must be denied, on the ground that the question could be best determined on the trial of the action.

This was a motion [against Samuel Stricker], made under section 1020 of the Revised Statutes, to remit the penalty of a forfeited recognizance, on the ground that the party bound to appear was, when called, in the custody of a state officer under a warrant issued out of a court of the state, on a criminal charge.

Thomas Harland, for the motion, cited Caldwell v. Com., 14 Grat. 698; U. S. v. Feely [Case No. 15,082]; People v. Bartlett, 3 Hill, 570.

BENEDICT, District Judge, denied the motion, upon the ground that the question could be best determined on the trial of the action which had been brought upon the forfeited recognizance.

¹ [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blatchford, District Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.