20 .r rmnmmu. nmromrna. `
at common law, and to one read at the hearing of a suit in equity. The
act of 1853 referred to is chapter 16 (relating to fees) in the Revised
Statutes, pages 153 to 161, and in which chapter are found sections 828
and 847, which prescribe the fees of commissioners and clerks for taking
and certifying depositions. I am satisfied that petitioner is not entitled
in this suit to any fees for taking depositions. ·
The next fee charged in every case mentioned in the petition, and for
which there is no authority, is for entering return of warrant. The pe-
titioner is notentitled to this fee. There is no statute which authorizes
it. Section 847 does not provide for it. He has no record on which to
enter such return, and the proof shows,~as a matter of fact, that he did not 5
enter it.- But he is entitled to a fee for issuing warrants, and for Bling
the same when returned. What Ivhave said in regard to the fee charged
for entering return of warrant applies equally to the charge for entering
return of subpoenas. The petitioner is, however, entitled to a fee for
issuing a subpcena, and for Bling the same when duly returned. It will
be observedrtbat rin some cases I have not allowed shim a fee for Bling
subpoenas. This disallowance has·only= been in cases where there was
no return. . ,·· was I .1 _ . V .
. The statute authorizes a charge -for drawing a bond at 15 cents anfolio.
Rev. St. r§§ 847, 828. On inspection of the bonds submitted in this
case I Bnd they contain four folios. I think petitioner should be allowed
15 cents·a folio for drawing bonds as charged. But the charge for ac-
knowledgment of bondsis unauthorized~·byslaw, and, as the proof shows,
by practice. Section 847,Reva St., provides for a feefor taking ac-
knowledgments. I am of opinion that this acknowledgment has no ref-
erence to a bail-bond. There is no such thing as an acknowledgment
to a bond. A commissioner is authorized to take bail; that is, to take
security for the appearance of a party incourt,-esce Rev. St. § 1014;
Code Ala. (1886,) §§ 4406, 4407 ,——the form of which is simply an ac-
knowledgment or admission by the accused and his sureties of indebt-
edness to the United States in the sumprescribed, oran agreement to
pay to the United States the sum prescribed, unless the accused appear
at the proper court, from term to term, or at a particular term, to answer
the particular chargepreferred against-him. This is signed, sealed, and
delivered to the officer taking the bail, and, if approved, the accused is
released from custody. 1 Brick. Dig. 208, § 71. There is no oath re-
quired, or further acknowledgment required or, as a matter of fact, taken.
Abond duly signed, with sureties, and with a condition for the appear-
ance of the principal in a criminal case before at court, accepted by a
person authorized tovtake bail, is good as a recognizance. In the caseof a
formal reoognizanoe the obligation is acknowledged by the parties present
in open court, and entered of record; -2 Bouv. Law. Dict. 828. But in
the case of a bond in the nature of a recognizance, where the parties sign
theirnames, there is no absolute necessity for the principal being present
before the"person~authorized to accept such bond. In theabsence of the
principal, the magistrate might refuse to accept the bond, but if he is
satisfied that it was duly signed and sealed, and the sureties are sufficient,