
    * Jotham Jacobs versus Samuel Tolman.
    A prisoner for debt, having given bond for the .liberty of the yard, committed no escape by passing the nights in a house hired and appropriated by the Sessions for the use of debtors who had given bonds, although the keeper of the jail exercised no control over such house.
    Debt on bond, conditioned that Nathaniel Tolman should continue a true prisoner in the custody of the jailer, &c. Issue was joined on the question of escape, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case agreed, which was to the following effect: —
    At the time alleged in the plaintiff’s replication, the said Nathaniel was a prisoner in the jail at Dedham, at the suit of the plaintiff, and had given bond according to the statute, the defendant being his surety, conditioned to be a true prisoner until he should be thence lawfully discharged. On the 19th day of February, 1803, he was released from confinement, by taking the poor prisoner’s oath. From the date of the said bond until so discharged, he slept and remained during the night time in the house of one William Smith, in which house all the other prisoners, who had given bond for the liberty of the yard, also passed the night.—In December, 1801, the Sessions passed the following order, viz.: “ On verbal report of a committee, ordered that William Smith’s east chamber be accepted for the present, as appurtenant to the jail, for accommodation of such debtors only as may give security for continuing true prisoners.” — Afterwards, in September, 1802, the Sessions passed the following order, viz. : “ Ordered that the whole of William Smith’s house be considered as part of the jail, for such debtors only as shall have liberty of the yard, instead of one chamber, as heretofore.” — The said house remained so appropriated by the Sessions for. the purpose aforesaid until the said Nathaniel was discharged. During the said term, the rent of said house for the said use was paid by the county. During the said Nathaniel’s confinement, the keeper of the jail exercised no control over said house, nor over the said Nathaniel, who was not in the county jail du.ring that time, unless the said house should be considered part of the said jail.
    * Whiting for the plaintiff.
    
      Morton, attorney-general, for ihe defendant.
   By the Court.

From the case stated we take it as agreed that Smith’s house was situate within the boundaries of the jail-yard, as fixed and determined by the Court of Sessions; they had then authority to appropriate the whole house, or any apartments in it, for receiving and lodging prisoners for debt, having the owner’s consent. It appears by the case that this was done here. The Sessions paid rent for the use of it, for the purpose of lodging prisoners for debt; and without a formal lease, the sheriff and his deputy jailer had full authority to enter the apartments so appropriated, in the same manner as they had' to enter the jail itself, and to exercise the same control therein. Their neglecting to exercise such control could not operate to charge a prisoner with an escape, who duly kept within the limits and apartments prescribed. There was then no escape. The verdict must be set aside, and the defendant have judgment for his costs.  