
    STATE, TO THE USE OF MOSES RINGOLD vs. JOHN T. McGOWAN & AL.
    Where a constable was appointed at -February Term, 1848, and in August 1848, a claim was put in his hands for collection, on which he obtained a judgment, and a stay was granted by a magistrate, which expired during February Term, 1849, when the said constable was not reappointed at February Term, 1849, but in July following was appointed deputy sheriff, and then took out execution on the claim, collected it and failed to pay it over. Held, that he was not responsible on his constable’s bond, no default having been committed during the year of his appointment.
    The cases of Keck v Cob!e, 2 Dev. 489, .and State v Lackey, 3 Ire. 25, cited and approved.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pitt County, at the Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge Ellis presiding.
    No counsel for the plaintiff.
    
      Biggs and Donnell, for the defendants.
   Nash, S.

The action is upon a constable’s bond; and the.breach relied on was for collecting money and not paying over.

•At the February Term, 1848, of Pitt County Court, the defendant, McGowan, was appointed a constabl e, and .entered into bond with the other defendants as his sureties. His official year expired at February Term, 1849. In Au- ■ gust, 1848, the relator placed in his hands a note, for which he gave a receipt, binding himself to collect or return. On. the same day, the constable obtained a judgment on the note, on' which the. magistrate granted a stay of six months, which expired during February Term, 1849. McGowan was not appointed a constable at February Term, but in July following, was, by the sheriff, appointed his deputy, after which he took out an execution on the judgment and collected the money. The action is brought upon the official bond of 1848. The plaintiff cannot recover. The appointment of a constable is but for one year, and the bond given by him loses its force as to any breach of duty after that period. The bond, upon which this action is brought, covered only such breaches on the part of the constable, as occurred after his appointment in February, 1848, and before February Court, 1849. Keck v Coble, 2 Dev. 489, State v Lackey, 3 Ire. 25. During that period, he received no money on the claim put in his hands for collection, nor was he guilty of any negligence. He received the note in August, 1848, and on the same day took a judgment on it, and the stay upon it ran out at February Term, 1849, when his official year expired. He subsequently did receive the money tinder an execution, not as constable, but as deputy sheriff, and as such is answerable.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.  