
    Sloan against Wattles.
    The attorney fat ancí'^ñtum tefo°eru%Csívvthe’sheriir.is aUstructed’by the attorney, to alter the return day, ni case theeerrvedanbeforee the ^iteration! men! or‘\ppearance is-ehilgrsed,
    
      N. WILLIAMS, for the- defendant,
    moved to set aside the capias in this cause,‘on the ground that the sheriff had altered the return day of the writ.
    It appeared that-the plaintiff’s attorney, on sending the writ to the sheriff, had instructed him, that in case he did not receive . . . ' - 1 , , . the writ in time to be served before the'return day, to alter it. - . J T^e sheriff served the writ, and was about taking a bond-for appearance, when he discovered that the return day was passed‘; he then altered the return day, and served the writ anew, '
    7. Hamilton, contra.
   Per Cúriam.

- /The attorney'might ha-ve altered the, test a nd .return of a writ before it had been served; and the sheriff was fully authorized, by. the attorney, to -make the alteration in case it should be-necessary. .vWe think.the-'sheriff, in this'case, had not proceeded so far hut that he might exercise the power,•given* to 'him/by- the attorney, and that the motion, therefore, fought to he-denied.

Motion-denied.  