In State v. Hyers, 122 N.J. Super. 177, 299 A.2d 748 (App.Div.1973) the Court held that a forfeiture of bail may be set aside in whole or in part if it is found by the court that "its enforcement is not required in the interest of justice. . . ." R. 3:26-6(b). As the Court read the record, the trial judge appears to have determined that a decision as to whether the "interest of justice" will be served requires only a consideration of whether there has been some excuse for the nonappearance of defendant. The Court found this interpretation of R. 3:26-6(b) to be too restrictive. There are other factors that should be considered by a trial judge when the rule is invoked. The determination to be made is essentially equitable in nature and should include: (a) whether the applicant is a commercial bondsman; (b) the bondsman's supervision, if any, of defendant during the time of his release; (c) the bondsman's efforts to insure the return of the fugitive; (d) the time elapsed between the date ordered for the appearance of defendant and his return to court; (e) the prejudice, if any, to the State because of the absence of defendant; (f) the expenses incurred by the State by reason of the default in appearance, the recapture of the fugitive and the enforcement of the forfeiture; (g) whether reimbursement of the expenses incurred in; (f) will adequately satisfy the interests of justice. Id. at 180, 299 A.2d 748.