
    H. K. Lamb, plaintiff in error, vs. Seaborn Dozier, defendant in error.
    I. On the trial of an affidavit of illegality founded on alleged want of service, the return of the sheriff that the defendant was served, is conclusive, unless it be traversed; and the pleadings must be so framed that the traverse and issue thereon shall plainly appear of record; and' to such traverse the sheriff should be a party, as his official return is questioned.
    2. This traverse must be made at the first term after notice of such entry of service is had by the defendant; and the fact that it is made at such term must be also averred and proven on the trial of the traverse.
    Illegality. Service. Sheriff. Return. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Clark. Schley Superior Court. October Term, 1875.
    Reported in the opinion.
    Guerry & Son; B. B. Hinton; M. J. Wall, for plaintiff in error.
    W. A. Hawkins, for defendant.
   Jackson, Judge.

The affidavit of illegality in this case was based upon want of service. The return of the sheriff was that the defendant was served. There was no traverse of this return made by the pleadings, so that the records should show that it liad been done, and that they were consistent with themselves. We think that this should always be done, and that the sheriff, whose return is thus attacked, should be a party to the traverse and be heard thereon. This case is fully covered by the case of Maund vs. Keating, page 396. We can add nothing to the opinion delivered in that case.

Judgment reversed.  