#### The State v. Isaac Dickenson.

From Edgecombe.

A. being' recognized in 800b to appeal’, failed, and his recognizance was forfeited. Scire Facias issued against him to shew cause, “ why exe- “ cution should not issue for 800b for a fine on a forfeited recognizance, “ in failing to appear, &c. — Defendant pleaded “ nul tiel record plea negatived and judgment for the State.

The defendant was recognized in the sum of eight hundred pounds to appear at the Superior Court of Law for Edgecombe County $ and failing to appeal’, his recognizance was forfeited, and judgment nisi was entered against him. A scire facias was sued out, directed to the Sheriff of Wayne, commanding him “ to make known to the de- “ fendant that he be and appear, &c. to shew cause why “ execution should not issue against him for the sum of ei eight hundred pounds for a fine on a forfeited recogni- “ zance in failing to make his personal appearance at “ March Term, &c. as he was bound to do.” To this scire facias, the defendant pleaded, nul tiel record. And it was submitted to this Court, whether the record supports the scire facias.

Tavxor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The word fine might well be left out, if it obscured or confounded the sense of the scire fiadas ; and it would then *11read “ eight hundred pounds on a forfeited recognizance.” But if the word be retained, it is not possible for the defendant to misapprehend the purport of the scire faáas, because the meaning intended to be affixed to the woi>d, is explained by what follows. When the state exhibits the record shewing that the defendants recognizance was forfeited, the fact affirmed in the sáre faáas is substantially proved, and the plea of mil iiel record, negatived — Let judgment be entered for the State.