
    John McKeag vs. Lawrence O’Donnell.
    An appellant from the judgment of a justice of the peace or police court in a civil action need not recognize for the prosecution of his appeal and the payment of such costs as may thereafter arise, unless required to do so by the adverse party, under (Sen. Sts. c. 120, § 26.
    This was a motion to dismiss, in the superior court,, an appeal from the judgment of the police court of Chicopee;, in a civil action, on the ground that the record did not show that the appellant had recognized to prosecute his appeal and to pay all costs that might thereafter arise. The record did not show that the appellant had been required by the adverse party to recognize ; and the motion was overruled. The appellee alleged exceptions.
    
      G. H. Knapp, for the appellee.
    A. M Copeland, for the appellant.
   G .iaYj J.

The Gen. Sts. c. 120, § 26, reenacting the provision first introduced by the legislature in the Rev. Sts. c. 85, § 14, require that the appellant from the judgment of a justice of the peace in any civil action “ shall before the allowance of his appeal recognize with sufficient surety or sureties to the adverse party, if required by him,” for the effectual prosecution of the appeal and the payment of future costs. The record of the justice of the peace in this case does not show that the appellee ever required any recognizance. The appellee however contends that if he did not, the appellant was at least bound to enter into a recognizance without sureties. But such a construction is equally inconsistent with grammar and with reason. It would be quite as consistent with the language of the statute to maintain that a recognizance with sureties was to be taken in all cases, but not to the adverse party unless required by him. And a recognizance without sureties would give no additional remedy against the appellant himself.

Exceptions overruled.  