
    The State vs. Samuel C. Roop.
    New Castle County,
    October Term, 1893.
    Criminal Law, Kecogmtosmce,—Where a case is continued by consent and leave given that the recognizance be respited, unless the parties actually appear and have it respited it cannot at the following term be forfeited.
    The defendant was indicted for libel at the October term 1893. On October 4th upon application of the defendant the case was continued on the April term, 1894, a recognizance being taken in $1,000 and acknowledged in open court. On April 3, 1894, it being then the April term, the case was continued by consent with the understanding that the recognizance should be respited. At the October term 1894, the defendant failed to appear and Nicholson, Attorney General, asked that he be called and that the recognizance be forfeited.
    
      Charles N. Richards,
    
    for the defendant objected upon the ground that the parties had failed to appear and have the recognizance respited. o
   Lore, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Attorney General asked for the forfeiture of the recognn zance conditioned for the appearance of the defendant at the April'."’ term, 1894. At that term the case was continued by consent, th& recognizance neither being called and forfeited nor respited. There,-' was no breach of the recognizance at the April term and it could not now be forfeited, the same having expired.  