State v. Roop

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.