
    State vs. D. Beckett.
    'Where a Sheriff ad vertiseS property in a-district where a Gazette is printed, he is entitled to receive the costs of printing such advertisement, and nothing more.
    When property is for sale by sheriffs in districts where Gazettes are printed the advertisement must be published in one or more si them; and where there are no Gazettes printed, notices must he put up at the court house door, and at two other public places in the district.
    And it is not necessary, in districts where Gazettes are published, to give any other notice, than in a Gazette.
    Rut, where a Gazette is ;not published Within the district, but there is one within forty miles of the court house, advertisements must be published in such Gazette, as well as at the places in the district. '
    In all cases where the law requires the publication in the Gazette, the sheriff Is entitled to such costs; and where it requires, also, three other advef-
      j fisemenls in the district, the sheriff is entitled to the feesforsuch manuscript advertisements.
    Jor advertisements not published in a Gazette, the sheriff is entitled to $l,for the first time, and 50 cents for each succeeding advertisement in the same case.
    Where there are a number of plaintiffs against the same defendant, and his •property is advertised under all their executions, the sheriff is still only entitled to the costs of one advertisement; as all the plaintiffs names can be put into the same adver tisement.
    This case came up in the following manner. Mr. J. G. Holmes took out a rule against the late sheriff David Becket, of Richland district, to shew cause why his costs for advertising property of the defendant, in divers cases, should not be confined to the printers bill alone, for inserting in his newspaper the advertisements.
    The sheriff, for cause, by Col. Chappell, submitted, 1! that in advertising the property of defendants, he is entitled to charge for each advertisement .f 1,93, on each case inserted in the advertisement, or, in other words, to $1,93, per month, in each case in which property may be advertised for sale.”
    Upon this shewing, his honor Judge Richardson, re* quested the clerk, Mr. Guignard, to enquire into the facts and to certify them, with his opinion thereon to the court. Mr.'Guignard made the following report:
    “ It appears that David Beckét late sheriff of Richland district has charged the sum of ,$'606',45, for advertising defendant’s, (Dr. O’Gilvie,) property in the Gazette, for the years 1822, 1823 and 18^4; which amounts to nearly as much as the printer has charged the sheriff for all the advertisement in those three years, of which, those that O’Gilvie was interested in, could constitute but a small proportion.
    “ Mr. Becket’s bill is too general for, me to make an exact statement. It appears that he has advertised property of O’Gilvie for sale at the suit of several plaintiffs, say six or more different plaintiffs, which did not occupy in the Gazette more than one square, for which the printer has charged one dollar fifty cents, for three publications. Mr. Becket lias charged the defendant that price in each case. Say, if six cases, the sum of $9; which the clerk deems an overcharge; as in his opinion the sheriff has no right to charge the defendant with more than the amount paid the printer.
    There is some difficulty in ascertaining the proper mode of advertising. In this district where there are Gazettes, there is, it seems, no necessity for the sheriff to put up written notices in three public places, in addition to advertising In the Gazette; but in the act of 1808 (page 49,) it is expressly declared that the sheriff shall advertise in the public Gazette, and also advertise as heretofore. Agreeably to which it appears that the sheriff is bound to advertise three weeks in the public Gazettes, and also, advertise at three public places in the district. And if so the sheriff ought to be entitled to one dollar for three manuscript advertisements in each case, and also the printers charge for advertising.
    
      James S. Guignard,
    
    Clerk of Richland district.
    “ I consider the principle laid down by the clerk correct; but if the sheriff did not actually advertise in manuscript, he is not entitled to any costs therefor.
    
      J. S. Richardson,
    
    Columbia, April 1825.” •
    The defendant O’Gilvie, appealed from the opinion of the circuit court on the grounds:
    1st. That the sheriff of Richland district, where a Gazette is published, is not required to advertise in manu. script, at three public places in the district, but is only required to advertise in the Gazette, and consequently is not entitled to costs for advertising at three public places.
    2nd. That if the sheriff of Richland district, is, entitled to charge for three public advertisements in manuscript, yet he is not entitled to charge , on each case, under which the same property is advertised for the same sale day.
    The sheriff appealed-from the foregoing decision,- and ■moved this court to order the clerk to retax his costs so as to allow him $1,50 on each case advertised in the papers for each month.
    Or, if that should not be done, then he moved this court to order the clerk to allow him $1 for the first advertisement, and 50 cents for each subsequent advertisement of the same property, in each case in which it was advertised.
   Johnson, J.

It is not pretended that the sheriff did advertise the property of Ogilvie otherwise than in the Ga*-settes printed in the town of Columbia, and the act of 1808 (2 Brev. 226,) referred to in the report, expressly provides, that in such case he shall be allowed to “ receive the costs of printing such advertisements, and none other charge for advertising,” which is conclusive on all the questions arising out of the particular case, and it is ordered that the bill of costs foe taxed accordingly.

The practice with respect to the other points made in this case has heretofore been very varient, and the court have,, therefore, thought it advisable to take this opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. These points involve the following questions.—

1 st. Whether the sheriff is entitled to charge for manuscript advertisements, where a Gazette is printed in the district?

2nd. Whether, when manuscript advertisements are necessary, he is entitled to the fee of $1 for advertising the same property at the same time at the suit of several different plaintiffs?

The solution of the first of these questions obviously depends on the circumstance, whether the sheriff is or is not bound to put up manuscript advertisements in those districts where Gazettes are printed.

The act of 1797 (2 Faust 147.) regulating the mode in which property taken in execution shall be advertised for sale, provides that when the property is for sale in the district ♦here Gazettes are printed, the advertisement shall be pub-fished in one or more of them and where there are no Gazettes printed,’ the notice or notices shall be put up at ther court-house door, and two other places in the district &c.”

James J. Holmes for 0‘Gilvie,

J. J. Chappell for Becket.

It is not pretended that this act makes it the duty of the sheriff to put up manuscript advertisements where there are Gazettes, but that the words, “ and also advertise as heretofore,” used in the conclusion of the clause of the act of 1808, taken in connection with it, renders it necessary. But on looking into both the acts and reading them together it will be seen that, the intention of the Legislature was to provide for the publication of advertisements in a Gazette, when there was one printed within forty miles of the court house, although out of the district, and in that case manuscript advertisements are also rendered necessary, and consequently the sheriff’s would be entitled to have the printers bill refunded, as also the fee for the manuscript advertisements.

With respect to the second question, it is apparent, whether we regard the spirit or literal interpretation of the act of 1808, that the sheriff is only entitled to the fee of ‡1 for advertising for the first, and 50 cents for the each subsequent, sale day of the same property, without reference to the number of executions levied on it. And if we regard the reasonableness of the compensation, we cannot but be satisfied with the result. All the service which necessity or usage requires is, tlie addition of the names of the several plaintiffs at whose suit the property is advertised.

2ST. B. The printer’s charge for advertizing was stated, by Mr. D. Faust to be for a square or under, for one insertion 64 cents, for S insertions $1,50:” So that Mr. Sheriff would have made large profits upon this speculation, .  