city of Hudson, to be tried by a jury on two indictments for forgery in the second and third degrees, and not depart the court without leave, then this recognizance to be void or else to be and remain in full force and effect,
The counsel for the plaintiffs 'further proved, that on the said 10th day of January, 1851, orders were made by the said court of Oyer and Terminer and entered in the minutes sending each of the said indictments against Mandigo, for forgery, “ to the next court of sessions for trial.”
The plaintiff’s counsel then proved by the minutes of the court of sessions of said county, held in June, 1851, that an order was made and entered by that court as follows:
“ The People v. Michael Mandigo. — June 3, 1851. Default entered. Recognizances forfeited and ordered prosecuted. Michael P. Mandigo, principal; Edward M. Derby, surety.”
John R. Currie was then called as a witness for the plaintiffs, and testified that he was clerk of Columbia county in 1851, and till January, 1853; that he acted as clerk of the Oyer and Terminer in January, 1851; that the recognizance in question was taken by him in open court, and signed by Mandigo and Derby in his presence.
On his .cross-examination, he testified that there was a court of sessions held in Columbia county in March, 1851; that no jury was drawn for attendance at such term; that the recognizance in question was not forfeited at said March term; that the June term, 1851, was the first term of the sessions at which a jury was summoned or attended; and that it appeared from the minutes of the court of sessions, that, at the said March term, there was no rule or order made or entered sending the said indictments to the June term, or continuing the said recognizance to the said June term. • ^
M. Sanford, for the defendant.
J. C. Newkirk (Dist. Att’y), for the people.
after hearing counsel, expressed the opinion, that the proper construction of the recognizance was, that Mandigo should appear at the next court of sessions to be held in the city of Hudson, and not at the next court of sessions at which a jury should be summoned; that Mandigo was bound, therefore, by the recognizance, to appear at the March term, and not at the June term; that though the indictments had been sent to the March term for trial, no proceedings upon them had been had at that term, nor had any step been taken to continue the recognizance till the June term, and that therefore the default taken at the June term was irregular, and no evidence of a breach of the condition of the recognizance. Whereupon the jury, under the direction of the court, rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Judgment for defendant.