Case Name: The Commissioners of the Treasury vs. James F. Muse
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1814-11
Citations: 1 Tread 465
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commissioners of the Treasury vs. James F. Muse.
Judges: Justices BiíevaRD and Bay, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
Columbia^ November Term, 1814.
The Commissioners of the Treasury vs. James F. Muse.
Ci.arke & Hooker, for the Motion.
Evans, Contra,
Tried before Judge VFaties.
This was an action of debt, on the sheriff’s bond, given by the defendant, as sheriff of Fairfield district. The defendant pleaded non est factum, and objected to the admission of the certified copy of the bond, under the plea 5 because the words u as required, by law,” instead of the words (< as required, or to be required by law,” were used in the condition of the bond. Andón this supposed defect, moved in the court below for a non-suit, which motion was overruled.
The present motion, is to reverse that decision.

Opinion:
Smith, J.
The omission of those words, in the condition of the bond, subjected the defendant to no additional inconvenience: nor did it render him y liable to any penalties, or subject him to any other disabilities. Nor can I see how it in any degree altered the proof. It had all the solemnities of attestation, signature, and official authenticity from the treasury de- . . partment. 1 he omission oí a word, which at most appeal's to be redundant, could not destroy its identity. ^^len ^ was the same bond, which the defendant, and his securities executed, the objection could not be va-jf this had been a bond imposing duties not required by law, and for an omission of those duties, the sheriff had ¡been sued, he might then, with a good grace, have claimed the protection of this court, to relieve him from oppression. But when a sheriff has been forgetful of his oath of office, the sacred character of a public officer, as well as of every moral and social duty; and with a prodigal hand, has laid hold of all the monies he could officially grasp, and has idly wasted it in his amusements, or his follies, without the least regard to justice, or of the honest men he hath defrauded ; he ought to catch at more than a shadow, before he can expect legally to shield himself from a fair retribution. I am, therefore, against the motion.
Justices BiíevaRD and Bay, concurred.