
    MORTON vs. HERAULT and PILE.
    Exceptions» ⅛ ¡,e made ¾ fitft term after e,^.ln®a-1^pí>j^á too ;ite' aftec fyecial bail is
    cfe„&7/ vli jbgen, anti 1S3.
    MORTON sued Rerault, and made ah affidavit to fcold him to bail, upon, which He obtained a judge's dr-der tor that purpose; the defendant accordingly gave appeát-ánce bail. At the succeeding Court, Pile becdme the spécial bail; ánd át the terna next succeeding, Hfe-ráult, by his attorney, moved the court to quash the áp-pearance bail bond, discharge thé recogniérañce of spe-ciál bail, and to permit him to appear without bail, Fora defect in the affidavit upon which he wás held to bail; which motion Was granted by the court. This, opinion was excepted to by the plaintiff.
    The error assigned extended to that opinion and decision only.
    The cause WaS argued by Alten, and Littell, For the plaintiffs ; and by SPKinley, for the defendants.
   By the CoüAt.

— We ' are o'f Opinion the inferior' court erred — .First, because the defendant ought hot fe> have been permitted to avail himsfelf of any defect in the affidavit; at áñy time after the first terth succeedifig thfe giving of appearance bail.

Secondly^ — It could not be done after special bail was given; ánd, consequently, the recognizance of special bail could not be discharged.

judgfiieht of the inferior court discharging the special bail reversed.  