Appeal, No. 287, Oct. T., 1955, from decree of Court of Quarter Sessions of Chester County, Feb. T., 1954, No. 62, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Evander B. Hill. Decree reversed.
W. J. C. O'Donnell, with him O'Donnell & O'Donnell, for appellant.
J. E. Stively, with him Joseph G. McKeone, District Attorney and John I. Watson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Theodore O. Rogers, for County of Chester.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 431]
This is an appeal from a lower court order denying appellant's petition for remission of forfeiture of a bail bond. Appellant entered bail bond for defendant, who was charged with a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code, in February of 1954. The bond was conditioned
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 432]
upon the defendant's appearance "at the May 1954 Term ... to be holden on the Monday of May 10, 1954 and at such other times as the court shall direct." Defendant did appear at the May 1954 Term and then at the following two terms. On Friday, March 4, 1955, defendant's attorney, upon learning that the case would be listed for the next term beginning the following Monday, wrote the defendant at Oxford, Pa., to that effect. The letter did not arrive until Tuesday, March 8, 1955. On Monday, March 7, 1955, at the call, the bond was forfeited, defendant not answering. Appellant learned of the listing and forfeiture at noon of that same day and immediately hastened to Oxford, found the defendant, and turned him over to the authorities that same afternoon.
In April, 1955, appellant petitioned for remission of the forfeiture. The lower court denied the petition and the appeal to this court followed.
A petition for remission of forfeited recognizance is authorized by the Act of December 9, 1783, 2 Sm.L. 84, Sec. 2, 8 PS 171, by virtue of which the court is empowered to remit where a forfeiture is inequitable or where it is unwarranted under the law. The court below held that the bond in this case was properly forfeited and that no equitable considerations were shown such as to warrant remission. In so holding, the court below misinterpreted the wording of the recognizance. The bond reads that it is conditioned on the appearance of defendant "at the May 1954 term of the Court ... to be holden on the Monday of May 10, 1954, and at such other times as the Court shall direct." This was erroneously construed to mean that defendant should appear at the May 1954 ...