Case ID: njl_17/html/0162-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Sed per cur:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MELVIN ET AL. v. PURDY.
    Matter of practice.
    
      H. W. Green,
    
    moved for an amercement against the sheriff of Middlesex, for not duly executing a writ of execution. On proof of a service of notice of this motion on the sheriff; counsel relied on these facts; viz: That more than ten days before the first day of the term, a notice of amercement in this cause, together with a capius ad respondendum, in another suit, had been inclosed to the sheriff in one envelope, by mail: that the sheriff had served and returned the capias which was now on file; and as the packet had been mailed so long before Court, that according to the course of the mail, it would reach the sheriff more than ten days prior to this term; and as one of the enclosures could not have come to his hands without the other; it was at least prima facia evidence that the sheriff had received the notice as well as the capias.
    
   Sed per cur:

That the sheriff has served and returned the capias which was enclosed with the notice, is pretty strong evidence that both papers came to his hands*; but not that he received them ten days before the first day of the term.

The motion must be denied.