
    Abihu Ackley against Stephen Chester.
    In an action on the case against the sheriff for neglecting to return an execution within the life of it, and for a false return, it was held, that he was liable in damages for the wholeamount of the execution.
    THIS was an action on the case, brought against the defendant, as sheriff of Hartford county, for the default of John B, Ripley, his deputy.
    It was stated in the declaration, that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against one Hilbert Wier, for the sum of 195 dollars, for damages, costs and execution, and that execution was issued thereon accordingly, dated the 11th day of August, 1808, and returnable within sixty days from its date ; that on the same day, the execution was put into the hands of Ripley ; and that he received it to execute according to law. It was then averred, that Ripley neglected to execute or return the execution within the life of it, but that he, on the 26th day of December, 1808, made a false return thereof. It was also further stated, that during the life of the execution, Wier was in possession of personal property sufficient to satisfy the amount thereof, and that this fact was known to the officer ; and also, that the body of Wier could have been taken and committed during the life of the execution.
    It was proved on the trial, that Ripley, by virtue of the original writ and process in favour of the plaintiff, against Wier, attached the personal property of Wier, of the value of 110 dollars.
    It was also proved, that on the 27th day of September, 1808, Ripley, by virtue of the execution before mentioned, arrested the body of Whr ; and that on the same day, Wier made his escape from the officer, and secreted himself, until the 26th day of Dtccmber, 1808, when he was retaken, and committed; and that on the day following, Ripley returned the execution mto the clerics office, to which it was returnable.
    Upon these facts, the court instructed the jury, that the defendant was liable to pay the whole amount of the execution ; and the jury returned their verdict accordingly; whereupon, the defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection; which motion was reserved for the opinion of the nine Judges.
    
      
      Sargeant and T. S. Williams, argued in support ol' (lie motion.
    They cited Ravenscroft v. Eylrs, 2 If’is. 294. Librci v. Child, 1 Roots Rep. 261. Russell v. Palmer, 2 Wils. 328. Bonafms v. Walker, 2 Term Rep. 129. Plank v. Anderson, 5 Term Rep. 40. Ramson v. Dole, 2 Johns. Rep. 454.
    
      J. T. Peters and Bradley, contra,
    ciled i Slat. Conn. tit. 146. c. 1. s. 11. 2 Swifts Syst. 114, 280, 281. Sloyel v. Lawrence, 3 Day’s Rep. 1.
   Ingersoll, J.

This was an action brought by Ackley against Chester, for making a false indorsement on an execution, and for not returning the same.

The execution was in favour of the plaintiff, and against one Gilbert Wicr, dated the 11th day of August, 1808, and was returnable within sixty days from its date. It was in the hands of one John B. Ripley, a deputy of the defendant, and was by him levied on the body of Wier, on the 27th day of September, 1808 ; who, soon afterwards, escaped from the custody of the deputy sheriff, and was retaken by the officer, on the 26th day of December following ; and on the 27th day of the same month, the execution was returned into the clerk’s office.

The court charged the jury, to give the amount of the execution in damages, on the ground, that in cases of this kind, there could be no liquidation of damages to such sum, as might be supposed to he sufficient to repair the injury sustained. The jury accordingly returned their verdict in conformity to the above direction. This motion was granted for a supposed misdirection.

My opinion is, that the charge was correct. However the case might stand, on general principles, yet, it has so long been the practice in this state, to give the whole sum in damages, for an officer’s neglect of duty, in not levying or returning an execution, or for making a false return, that it may-now be considered as settled law.

I am of opinion, also, if the question were open for examination, that it would be better for the public, to have it set-ikil in this way, than in any other. The sheriff and other officers know what their duty is on this subject, and what will be the consequences of their negligence. The rule, thus settled, is not too rigorous upon them, and is very beneficial to the public.

I would not, therefore, advise a new trial.

Mitchell, Ch. J. being related to one of the parties, gave no opinion. The other Judges concurred in the opinion delivered by Ingersoll, J.

New trial not to be granted.  