Case ID: wend_2/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Marcy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People vs. Shoemaker, late sheriff of Tioga.
    A sheriff will be discharged from an attachment for not bringing in the body, where special bail hath been put in, but the bail piece has been lost in its transmisssion to the clerk’s office.
    Attachment for not bringing in body. J. W. Wisner was arrested on a copias, returnable at the May term, 1828. Bail not being put in, a rule was entered, requiring the sheriff to bring in the body of the defendant within twenty days, or shew cause, notice of which was served on 2d September. At the October term an attachment was ordered, which was issued on the 2d February, on which the sheriff was brought into court; who now answered on interrogatories. It appeared, that on the 12th July, 1828, the deputy of the sheriff who served the writ, procured Wisner to put in special bail; that the special bail piece was put into the post-office at Elmira, Tioga county, directed to the clerk at Utica, and notice given to the plaintiff’s attorney. The bail piece, however, on search, could not be found in the clerk’s office.
    
      E. Dana, for plaintiff,
    insisted, that the plaintiff having lost a trial, and the contempt not being, purged, the sheriff was liable for the debt, and that the attachment should remain and stand as a security for the sum recovered. (2 Saund. 61, f.)
    
   By the Court, Marcy, J.

The sheriff here is not strictly in contempt; bail was put in, and the loss of the bail piece was probably occasioned by the miscarriage of the letter in which it was enclosed. In a suit on the bail bond, the defendant, under such circumstances, would have been relieved, and the sheriff is entitled to at least equal favor. On his putting in and perfecting good bail, and paying the costs of these proceedings, he is discharged.