
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
    JAN., 1809.
    Laval v. Gell.
    •Bail was sued in an action of debt on a bail bond to the sheriff, and he proved that the defendant, in the original action, was discharged from his arrest, 'at the suit of the original plaintiff, being privileged by his attendance at court as a witness ; but it appeared that he was again arrested, and thereupon the bail bond in question was taken. The de-fence, to the action on the bail bond, was, that it was a bond taken contrary to the stat. 23, H, 6 c. 9. It was adjudged this defence was insufficient.
    Motion for a new trial. Debt on a bail bond. The defence was, that the bond was taken by the sheriff colore officii, and contrary to the stat. 23 H? 6. c. 9. It appeared, on the trial, that Hughes, the defendant in the original action, was arrested at the su‘t DeLieben & Co., in 1805. After the bail bond was given in that case, Hughes, on application to the court, for some cause-shown by him, was discharged from that arrest. That cause, however, not continuing, (his attending court as a suitor,) the defendant was again arrested on the same writ.
    Geddes, for the defendant,
    insisted that it was oppressive, and unlawful, in the sheriff to arrest the defendant again on the same process, after he had been legally discharged by the court; and that to have authorized the arrest, the plaintiff should have discontinued the first action, and brought a new writ.
   Waties, J.,

in the District Court of Charleston, was of opinion-against this defence, and the plaintiff bad a verdict.

After hearing argument, in support of the motion in this court,, the judges were all of opinion it ought not to be granted. That the bail bond-was lawfully given for any thing that can appear as respects the bail. The bail bond was not discharged, although the defendant was discharged from his arrest. If the discharge of the defendant, from the custody of the sheriff, could be considered as-discharging the bail bond, or entitling the bail to be released from his obligation ; yet it was necessary to have applied to the District Court for an order to discharge tire bail. The bail bond cannot be defeated in this way.

Motion discharged.  