
    Columbia,
    
      November Term, 1815.
    Treasurer vs. Executors of J. Moore, Sureties for Davis, Sheriff.
    
    Blanding, for the Motion.
    
    Deas & Richardson, Contra.
    
    The party luis ít rii^hfc to require * geaxfv^¿en with a mb-pce¡uam, re-tu*n t0 the subpoena before the opened,
    Debt on Sheriff’s Bond, for the performance of duties.
    When this case was called, Mr. Blanding moved that - William Mary ant, esq. a co-security, who had been served with a writ of subpoena duces tecum, should be required to make return to the writ before the case was opened. It was contended that the plaintiff was entitled to this as a matter of right; for, otherwise, he never could know whether he was readv for trial, until he had proceeded to it, and * y * then, in case the papers wanted were not produced, he must submit to a non-suit, or a verdict against him. On the part of the defendant it was contended, that the witness having appeared in court, the party could ask nothing more, since the court would presume that he is ready to do what the suopcena requires. The court refused the motion and the case was continued. The present motion is to reverse decision of the court below, and for an order on William Mayrant, to make return to the subpoena.
   Colcock, J.

I am in favour of the motion. I think the witness should have made a return as to the duces tecum, or that part of the subpoena which required him to bring the books. I also think that a sheriff’s books are public property, and that whoever may be in possession of them, is bound to produce them, when called for by legal authority, even though as evidence against himself; nor can I conceive that there can be a doubt, but that when a sale has taken place, a sheriff, or his representatives, are bound to account for the proceeds.

Justices Gkimke, Nott, Bay and Smith concurred.  