
    WELLS v. BENEFIELD.
    Sheriff’s return — amended—explained—not varied by return on another writ.
    The return by a sheriff on process, is prima facie evidence against him.
    'Courts may permit returns to be amended according to the trouble, and perhaps will admit explanatory evidence.
    But a sheriff who has returned a levy, cannot by return on a venditioni exponas that the levy was not made exonerate himself, such return is a mere certificate of a party to a suit, and not evidence in his favor.
    Debt upon an appeal bond. Plea, that execution had been sued out on the judgment against the principal debtor, which was levied upon 200 cords of bark, of value more than sufficient to satisfy the judgment, and which remained on hand unsold. Replication, that all the property levied upon was sold, and was insufficient to satisfy the judgment. On this'replication issue was joined.
    To prove the issue for the defendant, he offered in evidence a writ of fi. fa. with a levy upon 200 cords of bark, returned upon it by the sheriff, which remained unsold for want of time. The plaintiff then offered a writ of venditioni exponas, sued out upon the levy, and the return of the sheriff that he had sold 20 cords of bark, and that the remaining 180 cords had not been levied upon. This was objected to by the defendant, as far as it regarded the 180 cords, as not being evidence.
   By the Court.

The evidence is inadmissible. The return of . the levy binds the officer, at least until set aside or explained by evidence. The court from which the process issued, might on proper evidence permit the return to • be amended. Or possibly this court would hear evidence to explain a return on an execution offered in evidence, but the matter now offered is no evidence. It is but a certificate of a sheriff made to exonerate -himself from liability. He had no authority to make such a return.

The plaintiff submitted to a lion suit.  