Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/155

148 , FEDBKAL BBPOBTEB. �Same— Execution of Bond— Pbestjmption as to Action of Clerk. �A bail-bond present in the record wasexecutedbefore a clerk, who wrote at the foot of it " signed, sealed and acknowledged, and approved by," signing his name thereto. It did not appear from the bond or otherwise tliat the , defendant was brought before the clerk for examination and bail as a magistrate. The court was in session that daj. Held, that it would be presumed to have been taken by the clerk under the immedi- ate direction of the court. �Same — Power to Tare — Ci.EnKs. — Courts have inherent power to take a recognizance. Clerks have such power onljr by virtue of statute. �W. W. Murray, District Attorney, and John B. Clough, Assistant, for the United States. �Emerson Etheridge and W. I. McFarland, for defendants. �The case was submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts : �On June 19, 1876, E. L. D. Evans, the defendant, was twice indicted for passing counterfeit money. Nos. 1,313, 1,314, On May 30 and 31, 1878, he was tried by jury in one case on a plea of not guilty, resulting in a mistrial. On May 31, 1878, after the jury were discharged and while the defendant was under bond for that (the May, 1878) term, and when no capais was outstanding for his arrest, nor any order for one entered, and when he was in court under said bond, the said defendant, with his counsel, in opeij court, (Judge Trigg presiding,) with his sureties, offered to enter into recognizances for his appearance at the following No. vember term, 1878, and was directed by the court to execute the bond before the clerk of said court, who at that time had not been appomted one of the commissioners of said court in addition to his appointment as clerk. In pursuance of the verbal direction of the court, the bond was executed in the clerk's office adjoining the court room, in each case. On January 20, 1879, judgment nisi was taken on the bonds, and on the same day scire fadas issued. The return of the mar- shal shows service on W. E. Evans only, the other two not being found. We agree to the above statement of facts, and agree that judgment may be pronounced as though an alias writ had been isBued and returned non est inventus as to the defendant E. L. D. Evans. We also agree that the defend- ����