Case ID: johns-cas_1/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People against Waters, Sheriff, &c.
    
    A sheriff is not liable to an attachment for a contempt in not acting uponprocess which does not come to his personal knowledge, or is not lodged in his .office, but is delivered to a deputy.
    The sheriff of Orange was brought up on an attachment for a contempt, in not returning a fieri facias directed to him. The plaintiff in the original suit, having filed interrogatories, and the sheriff having made answer thereto ; The Court said, a sheriff is not to be considered as in contempt for not acting on an execution which never came to his personal knowledge, nor was lodged in his office. In the present case it appears, that ihefi.fa. was delivered to a deputy ; and we need not decide whether such a delivery be good, so as to charge 'the sheriff himself, because, in this case, the sheriff has affirmed the receipt of the execution by acting upon it. He has not returned it within 40 days, and his answers afford no satisfactory excuse. We order that he pay a fine of 20 dollars for the contempt, and also the costs of the rule and attachment, and that he stand committed until (he fine and costs are paid.
    
    
      
      
        а) S. C., C. C. 76.
    
    
      
       In The People v. Brown, 6 Cowen, 41 ; the court say, that the principal case has not been followed; and held, therefore, that the sheriff was liable to an attachment for not returning process pursuant to a rule, though it never came to his own hands, but only to those of his deputy. See also The People v. Gilliland, 7 Johns. R. 555.