1. Under the facts stated in the question, the term “ accusation ” in the recognizance is broad enough to include the term “warrant.” See Cleveland v. Brown, 141 Ga. 829 (82 S. E. 243); Foole v. Gordon, 87 Ga. 277 (13 S E. 512).

2. Accordingly it should be presumed that the obligors in the bail-bond understood when they executed it that the term “ accusation ” therein referred to a “ warrant.”

dissenting. The undertaking of obligors in a criminal recognizance is stricti juris. They cannot be bound further than the very terms of their contract. Colquitt v. Smith, 65 Ga. 341, 342; Roberts v. Gordon, 86 Ga. 386 (12 S. E. 648).