
    The People v. Minnie Tuthill and William Quinn.
    ..Case made from Wayne.
    Submitted June 19.
    Decided October 9.
    Action upon forfeited recognizance. Plaintiff had judgment below.
    
      
      Henry N. Brevoort and Charles E. Miller for the plaintiff.
    A principal in a recognizance is in the custody of his sureties, who can arrest him at any time and surrender him to the court, Lamonte v. Ward, 36 Wis., 558; People v. Stager, 10 Wend., 431; every adjournment of an examination does not necessitate a new recognizance, People v. McCoy, 39 Barb., 73; the bond is intended to insure the appearance of the accused to answer respecting the offense charged, Dennard v. State, 2 Kelly (Ga.), 137; and he is not to depart until discharged, even though tried and acquitted, State v. Stout, 6 Halst. (N. J.), 124.
    
      Hawley & Firnane for defendant Tuthill.
    Fresh hail should be taken on the adjournment or postponement of a criminal examination, People v. Freeman, 20 Mich., 413; Ogden v. People, 62 Ill., 63; there should be record evidence of a default on a recognizance, and the certificate thereof by the justice should be a transcript of the record, Park v. State, 4 Ga., 329; State v. Grigsby, 3 Yerg., 280.
    
      Maybury & Conely for defendant Quinn.
    Oral evidence of proceedings required by law to be recorded does not. become competent by reason of neglect to record them, Stevenson v. Bay City, 26 Mich., 44; Longley v. Vose, 27 Me., 179; Jordan v. School Dist., 38 Me., 164; Benninghoof v. Finney, 22 Ind., 101; Cabot v. Britt, 36 Vt., 349; Hall v. People, 21 Mich., 456; Moser v. White, 29 Mich., 59.
   Maeston, J.

The questions raised in this ease are disposed of by the opinion in People v. Gordon, ante, p. 259.

The judgment will be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  