
    Buford vs. Crook and others.
    
    
      A capias ad satisfaciendum, issued by a justice of the peace for a sum within his jurisdiction, returnable to the county court, ¡3 void, and will he quashed.
    A capias ad satisfaciendum, issued by a justice of the peace, within his jurisdiclion, must be made returnable before himself, or some other justice of the peace.
    Judgment having been rendered against Crook at the suit of Buford, before a justice of-the peace, for a sum under fifty dollars, a ca. sa. issued, addressed to any lawful'officer, commanding that he take the body of said Crook, and him forthwith deliver to the jailer of said county, and that the jailer receive and commit him to.jail, safely keeping him until he satisfy Robert Buford the sum of thirty-two dollars seventy-five cents, with costs, &c. which was signed by the justice. Said writ was endorsed executed, and by the officer returned to court at October term, 1S32, with bond to appear at court. The condition of said bond was, that if the defendant should appear at court, make payment of the money called for in said process, or take the oath of insolvency, or make a surrender of his property as prescribed by law, then the obligation to be void. On the return of the process and bond into the county court, a motion on, behalf of the defendant was made to quash the execution, which:, on argument, was overruled, and judgment given against the said Crook and securities. From which a writ of error was prosecuted to the circuit court, and’, on argument in that court, the judgment was reversed, the execution quashed, and Crook discharged. From this decision of the circuit court Buford appealed in error to this, court.
    
      A. Huntsman, for plaintiff in error»
    
      West Humphreys, for defendant in error.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is of importance to the rights and liberty of the citizen, that, in process either to reach his person or properly, the forms the law has adopted should be pursued; and this strictness will be the more regarded in cases affecting the person and liberty of a defendant. The writ of capias ad satisfaciendum issued in this case is not in form. The command should have been, to have him before the justice who issued the writ, on a day therein appointed, to satisfy the said plaintiff in the sum of, &c., which the plaintiff had recovered for his debt, &c. This form secures to the defendant the benefits conferred by the act of 1823, ch. 12, sec. 6, authorizing a release of the body by a surrender of goods as therein specified. The judgment of the circuit court was proper, and is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  