Printable Format

Previous | Next

Source or prior law:

G.S. 1868, ch. 18, § 65; L. 1874, ch. 46, § 51; L. 1881, ch. 37, § 60; L. 1885, ch. 98, § 5.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Later act, see 12-4601, 12-4602.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Requirements of recognizance considered. Recognizance not void for mere irregularity. City of Kansas City v. Hescher, 4 Kan. App. 782, 785, 792 46 P. 1005.

2. Superadded conditions in recognizance held not to invalidate. City of Kansas City v. Hescher, 4 Kan. App. 782, 785, 792, 46 P. 1005.

3. Defendant is given ten days in which to perfect appeal. City of Kansas City v. Fagan, 4 Kan. App. 796, 799, 46 P. 1009.

4. Recognizance need not be executed or acknowledged before police judge. City of Kansas City v. Fagan, 4 Kan. App. 796, 799, 46 P. 1009.

5. City cannot appeal directly from police court to supreme court. City of Leavenworth v. Weaver, 26 Kan. 392, 393, 394.

6. Trial court may permit defendant to sign recognizance after time. City of Fort Scott v. Arbuckle, 164 Kan. 49, 50, 187 P.2d 348. Affirmed: 165 Kan. 374, 196 P.2d 217.

7. Cited; jury trial not demandable on appeal from police court conviction. City of Fort Scott v. Arbuckle, 165 Kan. 374, 387, 196 P.2d 217.

8. Mentioned; dismissal of appeal by district court not abuse of discretion. City of Wichita v. Catino, 175 Kan. 657, 265 P.2d 849.

9. Appeal dismissed for non-appearance on trial date; dismissal upheld. City of Wichita v. Houchens, 184 Kan. 297, 335 P.2d 1117.

10. Construed with K.S.A. 22-3609(2); complementary statutes; written notice of appeal required for criminal appeal to district court. City of Overland Park v. Nikias, 209 Kan. 643, 645, 646, 647, 498 P.2d 56.

11. Mentioned; failure to comply with K.S.A. 22-3609 in attempt to perfect appeal jurisdictional defect; not cured by filing notice in district court. City of Bonner Springs v. Clark, 3 Kan. App. 2d 8, 9, 588 P.2d 477.