
    The State versus Daniel Sawyer.
    In process of forcible entry and detainer, where the warrant was made returnable on the same day when it issued, it was held to be irregular.
    And if in the service of the warrant, in such a ease, the body of the respondent be not arrested four days before the day of trial, a copy of the warrant must be left at the usual place of abode of the respondent four days before trial, otherwise the service will be adjudged irregular.
    A motion was made in this case on behalf of Sawyer for a certiorari, to bring up the record of certain proceedings had against him before two magistrates, upon a complaint of forcible entry and detainer, made by W. C. Thompson. It appeared that Thompson, on the 20th April, 1830, made a complaint of forcible entry and de-tainer to the magistrates against, Sawyer, and that thereupon the magistrates issued a Warrant in the form prescribed by the statute, commanding the sheriff to apprehend Sawyer and have him before the magistrates on the said twenty-ninth clay of April, at two of the clock in the afiwrrewn 'Y 'vf, " ;c mt - m > .'.-w Yvr.ght before the mcgAAmc1. a!, fimo appubped ; that he moved d-c oarYiroícj to qywh liso prwerr. because made re-í wwl-lo mi the dw v.ven fi Trued; and .hut this motion vas overruled. 'Y'--?, cm.’c tros (aiünuerl lo the nett de;;- \ ben it was í. cd a fay, -..dio reh.rncd a ve "diet rioehin Sawyer, an t thereunen judgment was rendered that the said Thompson have restitution m the premises, and recocer of the saul S.uvyei the costs of the pro'meution taxed at ami that Sawyer pay a fine "f fifty cení- lor the wo of the county.
    
      JYfbrr- uul T-T in r,nppori of ihe motion.
    The Y. t w d L . . ; he .fiber side.
   f?j Ac ft.:;,..

*. .e.:em mamiou, that the certiorari with i-sut in this Caw The ri oecctlmgs oi the mag-vfir: log v.’Cic r.ef war rawed by the statute.

U is enacTd in fine A ird secfic n of the statute that n ihe rkcriffi Lc cenuc; find the party against whom the said mam aw owed. he may, four da 3m before the time appointed ihe 3 cum Aw; the f wnc, leave an attested copy of said •.sau'iaeJ ai (he w,ed j lace of the abode of such perwrw and i atibe retían of l.i'! warrant he shall not have been sd :e ic find w apprehend ihe poison against wham the r-i-d v/c • a. ui law mi, he shell make return of ■ uch finds, ana' ¡hat he iewh so left an attested copy, and ..’Lc-u the sanie v u dene.”

Ami the 'h:m 1 f the werr-nnfi prescribed by the statute, hefii this e'.uusc — a hut if the said C. D. is not to be found v r.Hn yc<r piechw,, yen aic required to ’eave an attest-⅝ fi ce_ y oi‘ liiir; w?.hu ri m the usual place of abode of •aid C. A. fwr days, .it bv.-t, lefeie caid day.”

ií ¡s fiwrefwt 1 up ¡ ‘-rifes; Lluu, the intention of the mwfiwura was. iYi in ease the person against whom the t,v;rant u sued, was mu wwsíed mene than four days before ihe day of trial, a copy of the warrant should be left at Lis usirJ place vf abode, and that in all cases he she.aid he vo notice of (he trial at least four clays before w ¡is • ■ rpr,embed.

If the arrest be not made at least, four days, before the day of trial, a copy must in all cases be left. And a re-the turn of an arrest will not be deemed a good service of warrant unless it be also returned either that the arrest was made four cloys before the day appointed for the trial, or that a copy was left the like number of days before that day.

In this ease, neither the warrant, nor the service of the -warrant, was legal, and. the certiorari must be granted.  