
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1802.
    Hunter v. Cleveland.
    A suitor in attendance on court is privileged from arrest on civil process, but not from service of the process, if bail is not required: and where a suitor was arrested and held to bail, the court discharged the bail, but refused to set aside the service of the writ. The exemption from arrest is the privilege of the court, and not of the party; and the indulgence to him will not he extended further than the necessity and expediency of the case requires.
    The defendant was attending the court in Pendleton district, as a suitor, when he waá arrested and held to bail at the suit of the plaintiff. A motion Was made in the district court, to set aside tho arrest, and release' tlie bail, before Johnson, J., who ordered the" defendant to be discharged upon a common appearance, holding the service of the writ to be good, but the arrest, and holding to’ bail, void. To this determination exception was taken, and upon motion in this court, it was contended, that the service of the writ was void' altogether,’ being a violation of the defendant’s privilege while attending the court upon other'business,'
   Sed per totam curiam,

the exception Cannot be' allowed to prevail. The party was privileged from arrest; but it is the privilege of the court, and not of the party, and ,though the officer may be fined for violating this privilege, the court will not interfere to give the party arrested any further relief, or greater indulgence, than the necessity and expediency of the case requires.-' It is fit that lie should be released' from arrest, and discharged out of the custody of the officer, or of bail; but there is no good reason for considering the service of the writ void. Where a man is seryed with process at an election, or a muster, the service will be void, because the statute law of the" country expressly prescribes that it shall' be so.

Motion denied.  