
    STATE vs. DOZIER.
    
      Certiorari. Celia Coen was bound over to the county court by a magistrate, who issued a subpoena for the defendant to attend there. The subpoena was returned to the court, upon which the witness was called and failed to appear. Two sci. fa’s. issued, upon which nihils were returned. Judgment and execution. The petition stated, that the defendant was sick at the court to which the subpoena was returnable; and never heard any thing of the proceedings. The first notice was the execution.
    A Magistrate has no authority to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses at county court in criminal cases 3 Binn. 277. 417.
    
    
      Stuart, for the petitioner,
    rested his case, 1st upon the sickness of the defendant when the subpoe-was returned, 2nd, the magistrate had no authority to issue subpoenas in such a case, and therefore all the proceedings were void.
    
      It is absolutely necessary, that the sci. fa. be actually served, to authorise the imposition of a fine. Two nihils are not sufficient. The attorney general admitted the magistrate had no authority to issue the subpoena.
   Per Curiam.

The first ground taken by the defendant’s counsel is not tenable; the petition does not shew, that he applied to the county court for a remission of the fine; every court ought to have the power of enforcing its process: nor should this court interfere, unless in cases where improper means had been used. Application ought to have been made to the court where the fine was imposed, supposing the subpoena to have been properly issued, and served; his not knowing of the sci. fa. would not authorise the interference of this court. Actual service is not indispensable. Upon adverting to the language of the court law, when speaking of the sci. fa. it uses the words “making known” precisely the same as in the case of bail, in which the practice is settled as it is in England. Two nihils are equal to actual service; the same practice is proper in this case.

Upon the 2d, ground, the process of subpoena being void, all subsequent proceedings must of course be so. On this ground alone the petitioner ought to be relieved.

Let the fine be remitted.  