
    The Inhabitants of Brewer versus The Inhabitants of New Gloucester.
    If an original writ against the inhabitants of a town, of which a deputy sheriff is one, be served by the sheriff, it is a good cause of abatement.
    Assumpsit for the support of a pauper. The defendants pleaded, in abatement, that Robert Nevers, one of the inhabitants of Neiv Gloucester, was, at the time of the service of the original writ in this case, a deputy sheriff, under Richard Hunnewell, Esq., the’ sheriff of the county of Cumberland, and that the said Hunnewell served the said writ on the said inhabitants.
    The plaintiffs demurred generally to this plea; and the defendants joined in demurrer.
    
      Perham for the plaintiffs.
    
      M’Gaw for the defendants.
   Per Curiam.

The statute, describing the duty and power of coroners, directs that all writs and precepts, when the sheriff or either of his deputies shall be a party to the same, shall be served by the coroner. As the law provides that, when judgment is recovered against the inhabitants of a town, execution may be levied upon the property of any inhabitant, each inhabitant must be considered as a party, within the meaning of the statute referred to, when the suit is by or against the town in its corporate capacity,

Writ abated. 
      
      
        Stat. 1783, c. 43, § 1.
     
      
      
        [Sutton vs. Cole, 8 Mass. Rep. 96. — Odiorne vs. Wade, 8 Mass. Rep. 115. — Lufkin vs. Haskell, 3 Pick. 356. — Bank vs. Cook, 4 Pick. 405. — Ed.]
     