
    Tankersley v. Lipscomb.
    July, 1831.
    Certiorari — When Lies. — The county and corporation courts being' courts of record, the writ of certi-orari does not lie to a judgment of a corporation court affirming a judgment of a single magistrate, though his is not a court of record, for a fine imposed by a penal law, or in a ciyil case: if there be error in the judgment of such court affirming the judgment of a single magistrate lor a fine, the writ of error lies.
    Case adjourned from the circuit court of Henrico.
    Upon the information and complaint of Moses Lipscomb, that Matilda Tankers-ley had harboured and employed his *'slave, knowing her to be a runaway, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, the mayor of Richmond issued a warrant against Tankersley requiring her to appear before him or some other magistrate of the city, and shew cause, if any she could, why she should not be fined, and otherwise proceeded against, according to the statute- And upon the return of the warrant, and a hearing of the parties, he rendered judgment against the defendant, for a fine of ten dollars, one half to Lipscomb the informer, and the other half to the commonwealth for the literary fund. The defendant appealed to the husting-s court of Richmond, under the provision in the county court law, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 71, § 23. The mayor certified the proceedings and judgment to the court; and the court affirmed the judgment, with costs against the defendant and her surety in the appeal bond ; Id. § 25.
    The defendant then presented a petition to the circuit court of Henrico, alleging error in the'proceedings ; whereupon the circuit court awarded a certiorari to bring- before it the proceedings and judgment of the mayor as well as those of the hustings court ; and upon this process, the record of the proceedings and judgment of the hustings court, which contained those of the mayor, were certified to the circuit court.
    And then the defendant by petition prayed the circuit court to award a writ of error to the judgment of the hustings court ; assigning for error, 1. That the warrant was prosecuted for Lipscomb alone, instead of being a quitam proceeding, for the commonwealth as well as himself ; 2. that such warrant did not lie for owner of a runaway slave, he having an action for damages; 3. that it was no where stated in the proceedings, that the defendant was an inhabitant of the city of Richmond, and so it did not appear *that the mayor or the hustings court had jurisdiction of the case ; and 4. that the hustings court gave judgment for costs, which in such case could not be adjudged. Whereupon, the circuit court, with consent of the parties, adjourned the case to this court, as one of novelty and difficulty, upon the following points :
    1. The judgment in this case being for a fine for the breach of a penal law, will the writ of certiorari lie in such a case, if there be error in the judgment? 2. Ought the circuit court to award a writ of error to the judgment of the hustings court? 3. What judgment ought the circuit court to render in the case?
    
      
       Certiorari — When Lies. — TheVirginia reports show no case of a judgment of the county or circuit reviewed by writ of atrt.iora.ri. This mode has been attempted in some such cases, but it has been disapproved. Dry den v. Swinburn, 15 W. Va. 254, citing Hay v. Pistor, 2 Leigh 707; Tankersley TAi>seomi, 3 Leigh 813. See monographic note on "Appeal and Jilrror’’ appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
    
      
       The statute of 1823-4, ch. 35, § 1, Supplement to Rev. Code, oil. 179, p. 236, imposing a line of not less than ten nor more than twenty dollars for the offence. Of course, the prosecution is within the jurisdiction of a single magistrate. — Note in Original Edition.
    
   PER CURIAM —

This court is of opinion, and doth decide ; 1. That as the judgment which was rendered by the mayor of Richmond was appealed from by Tankersley under the 23rd section of the county court law, and the mayor’s judgment was affirmed by the hustings court against the said appellant and her surety under the 25th section of that statute, the case was taken out of ihe jurisdiction of the mayor ; and that the court of hustings being a court of record, a certio-rari does not lie to a judgment rendered in that court, aud that this is true when the prosecution is for the breach of a penal law, as well as in a merely civil case.

2. That there is n o error in the judgment of the hustings court ; and therefore no writ of error should he awarded in this case.

3. That the circuit court ought to dismiss the certiorari as having been impro video fly awarded, refuse to award, the writ of error, and give judgment against the appellant Tankersley, for the costs of the appellee Lipscomb, in the circuit court.  