
    PATILLA VS THE GOVERNOR.
    
      Of proceedings against delinquent tax collectors.
    
    1. The several County Courts of this State, have no jurisdiction, whatever, of the offence created in the twelfth section of the act of 1821, providing a penalty where a tax collector makes a false return of taxable property, with a view to defraud the county or State.
    On a writ of error to the County Court of Jackson county.
    The proceedings upon which this case were' founded, originated on the relation of' Carter, the treasurer of Jackson county, who, on the seventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, filed a notice to Patilla, and his sureties, as the tax collector of said county, shewing that at a special term of the County Court of said county, a motion would be submitted upon the bond of said Patilla, as tax collector, for suppressing and making false return of taxes, for the year eighteen hujndred and thirty-five, for the penalty, &c.
    This notice being executed, Patilla appeared and plead not guilty; and after full argument, the Court rendered judgment against the tax collector. A bill of exceptions was taken, which set out the evidence, &c. upon which the Court acted, and upon which defendant pi’osecuted a writ of error.
    
      Ellis & Peck for the plaintiff in erro! — M Clung and Robinson, contra.
    
      
       Aikin’s Digest 417. §46.
    
   GOLDTHWAITB, J.

The proceedings in this' case are too erroneous to he attempted to be supported.

The case seems to have originated under a mistaken impression, that the County Court had jursi-diction of the offence specified in the forty-sixth' section of title taxes.

This section provides — “if any assessor or tax collector, shall make any false return of any list of taxable property, with a view to defraud the State or county of the revenue, he shall forfeit and pay double the amount of the sum, which it was his' duty to'have returned; and shall moreover be liable to a prosecution for fraud, and on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned, not less than three months, by the verdict of a jury, and shall be, ever thereafter, incaple of holding any office of profit, honor or trust, within this State-”

We deem it sufficient to say, that no part of this' act, gives to the County Court, jurisdiction of any offence committed in contravention of it.

This in no way resembles a prosecution by mo-' tion, under the seventy-sixth section of the same title; by virtue of which the County Court has jurisdiction to entertain a motion against a delinquent tax collector and his sureties, for failing to collect and pay over, the county tax, within the time prescribed by law.

The judgment of the Court below, is reversed. 
      
      Aik. Dig. 417.
     
      
       Aik. Dig. 423.
     