
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    DEC. 1814.
    Commissioners of the Treasury v. J. F. Muse, and others.
    Exception was taken to the condition of a sheriff’s bond, which contained the words, “ as required by law,” instead of the words, “ as required, or to be required by lawBut, it was held by the court, that the condition of the bond was substantially correct; and even if variant in substance from the A. A., the defect should have been challenged by craving oyer, and pleading.
    A sheriff, when sued on his bond, cannot object to the legality of his commission, because it bears date prior to the expiration of the term of office of his predecessor, as it was not to take effect till after the expiration of that term, and was to continue four years.
    Motion to set aside verdict, and order a nonsuit.
    Debt on a sheriff’s bond, tried in Fairfield district, before Judge Waties, in November, 1811.
    ' A copy of the bond was produced in evidence, pursuant to A. A. 1795, 2 Dig, Tit. 156, sec. 37, in proof of the general issue. Exception was taken to the condition of the bond, which was, that Muse should well and" truly discharge the duties of the office of sheriff for Fairfield district, as required by law; whereas, the A. A. aforesaid, 2 Dig. Tit. 156, sec. 33, prescribes that the condition of such bond shall be for the due and faithful discharge of the duties of the said office, as required, or to be required by law ; and it was insisted that the bond being variant- from the form prescribed by Á. A., a copy thereof was not admissible in evidence. The exception was overruled. It was also objected, that- Muse had never been legally commissioned as sheriff’. The commission being produced appeared to bear date prior to the expiration of the term of office of H. Moore, the predecessor of Muse, although it was not to take effect until after Moore’s term of office should expire ; that is to say, it was to expire in four years after Moore’s term. The objection was, that it was not expressed to comme,nce its ef-feet on the extinction of Moore’s term. This objection was also overruled. •
    Submitted on the brief, April, 1813.
    Dec. 5, 1814.
    The court refused the motion, being of opinion that the condition of the bond was substantially correct. Besides, if variant in substance, from the act of assembly, the variance, or defect, should have been challenged, by craving oyer, and pleading. The objection to the commissioners was considered óf no force.
   [Smith, J.

The omission of those words, in the condition of the bond, subjected the defendant to no additional inconvenience ; nor did it render him liable to any penalties, or subject him to any other disabilities. Nor can I see how it, in any degree, altered the proof. It had all the solemnities of attestation, signature, and official authenticity from the treasury department. The omission of a word, which, at most, appears to be redundant, could not destroy its identity. If then it was the same bond, which the defend, ant, and his securities executed, the objection could not be valid. If this had been a bond imposing duties not required by law, and for an omission of those duties, the sheriff had been sued, he might then, with a good grace, have claimed the protection of this court," to relieve him from oppression. But when a sheriff has been for-getffil of his oath of office, the sacred character of a public officer, as well as of every moral and social duty ; and with a prodigal hand, has laid hold of all the monies he could officially grasp, and has idly wasted it in his amusements, or his follies, without the least regard to justice, or of the honest men he hath defrauded ; he ought to catch at more than a shadow, before he can expect legally to shield himself from a fair retribution. I am, therefore, against the motion.]

Motion refused.  