SURETIES FORFEIT BAIL BONDS

Hokitika Guardian, 23 October 1929, Page 5

SURETIES FORFEIT BAIL BONDS

judge’s comment: CHRISTCHURCH, October 18. . Two sureties iost the amounts cf ‘their bonds, £SO each, when an application by thq Crown to estreat the bonds was allowed by Mr Justice t .darns f.n the Supreme Court this morning. Mr A. Au Brown appealed .in support of the application, and Mr W. J. Hunter represented the sureties. , .- Mr Brown said that the application was made under section 5 of the Crown Suits Act, 1908. In tli.s case a man named Holt Was alleged to have commib.ed an offends on August 2. He was arrested on August 6, and tried six days later. He was admitted to bail in self £ICO, and two sureties of £SO each. A condition of the release on bail was that accused should report daily to . the detect.ve office. . The sureties .were accused's half-brother, Mr Holt Harris, and his wife. Accused . carried out the condition of his release on bail till five days after his release on August 19. Two days after Holt had failed to report Mr Harris reported to the pol.ce that accused had disappeared and had probably absconded. Harris then got out An application for a. warrant for the arrest of Holt, but up to date there was no sign of Holt. “There is no suggestion that' the sureties connived at the escape,” said Mr Brown, “buit they had a full realisation of their responsibilities, Which had (been carefully ini-, (pressed ’on them Iby the chief detective/’ Mr Hunter said both sureties were poor and could ill afford to lose the amount of their bonds. , He quoted cases which he claimed shovyed that discretion was vested in the Court to disallow .the application. \

His Honour sajd that he had considerable sympathy with the unfortunate people, who had their confidence betrayed. It was necessary to consider always the purpose I for which admission to bail Was allowed. “I find it impossible,” said His Honour, “to accede to the suggestion of counsel without imperilling the liberty which is given on the answer of sureties in criminal cases.'.lf it were to ggt about that in siteh cases all that one had to do after entering into a bail bond was ‘to -do no more than was done" in this case, .there :would be the 'inducement for. people to enter into bail without due appreciation responsibilities, • and they would fai in their obvious duties.’’, . , His Honour declined to express any opinion as to whether the Court had discretion. The application was granted. . " . ■