Case Name: Low, qui tam. &c., against Little
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1820-01
Citations: 17 Johns. 346
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Low, qui tam. &c., against Little.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 273–276

Head Matter:
*Low, qui tam. &c., against Little.
I'he court may allow amendments in actions on penal statutes, as well as in other suits; but where m an action of debt, qui tam., under the statute for preventing usury, the writ which had been sued out in due time, and sent by mail to the sheriff of the county, had been lost, or miscarried j and the plaintiff, supposing it to have been served and returned, proceeded to file his declaration, &lc., the court refused to allow an alias capias to issue, as grounded on a return of non est inventus to the former writ, or to allow a ca-pias to be issued and hied with a return of non est inventus thereon endorsed, nunc pro tunc.
MOTION for leave to issue an alias capias ad respond, in this cause, upon filing a capias ad resp. therein, returnable as of August term, 1818, with a return oínon est inventus endorsed thereon ; or for leave to file a capias ad resp. thereon, with a return of non est inventus thereon, nunc pro tunc; or for such order as the court may think proper to grant.
In the vacation, after May term, 1818, a capias ad resp. in favor of the plaintiff, who sues as well for the poor of the town of Springfield, in Otsego county, as for himself, against the .defendant, in an action of debt, under the act for preventing usury, (1 N. R. L. 64.) was issued, directed to the sheriff of Otsego. The plaintiffs attorney being informed by his agent, that the capias ad resp. had been duly served and returned to the clerk’s office at Utica, proceeded to file his declaration, and delivered a copy thereof, with a notice of a rule to plead, to the agent of the defendant’s attorney, who had given a regular notice of appearance. A default was, afterwards, entered for want of a plea; but it being afterwards discovered that the writ was never returned to the clerk’s office in Utica, but was lost or destroyed, the court, on application for that purpose, at the last August term, set aside all the proceedings with costs.
It appeared that the capias ad resp. had been actually put into the post-office, enclosed and directed to the sheriff of Ot-sego, but had never come to his hands.
King, for the plaintiff.
Brown, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Spenceb, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no doubt, that the power of the court extends to allow amendments in actions on penal statutes, as well as in ordinary suits. To grant the amendment now asked *would be pushing the doctrine to its utmost limits. The suit is barred, unless the court permit a new writ to be made out and filed as of a distant day, and we incline to think it would be going further to subject the defendant to a penalty, than has yet been done; but there is an insurmountable difficulty, unless the sheriff make a return to the writ, that the defendant was not to be found in his bailiwick. Allowing it to be filed nunc pro tunc would be unavailing.
The sheriff cannot make such a return without a palpable violation of the truth; and if he did make it, contrary to the fact, and thereby 'the defendant sustained a loss, what is there to protect the sheriff from a liability to an action for the damages occasioned by the false return ?
Fictions of law were invented, and are allowed in furtherance of justice and to prevent an injury, but it would be going an extraordinary and unwarrantable length, to require an officer to make a false return to remedy an accident to one of the parties. The writ never came to the sheriffs hands ; if he had received it, and truly could return that the defendant was not to be found, these facts would justify an amendment, by making out a new writ, and filing it with the sheriff's return, nunc pro tunc. As the case is, the motion must be denied.