
    The State of Mississippi vs. James Wofford.
    The vice-chancellor, created by the act of 1842, is constituted by the act a conservator of the peace; as such, he has power to commit all breakers of the peace, or to bind them in recognizances to keep it, or to answer for offences committed against it.
    On appeal, from the circuit court of Marshall county ; Hon. Stephen Adams, judge, presiding.
    In this case, a recognizance was taken by the vice-chancellor, conditioned, that James Wofford should appear at the next term of the circuit court of Marshall county, to answer a charge of stealing a slave. Wofford did not appear; judgment nisi was taken, and, on return of the sci. fa. the recognizance was quashed, on the motion of the sureties, on the ground that the vice-chancellor had no jurisdiction to take the recognizance, and the district attorney appealed.
    
      John D. Freeman, attorney-general, for the state.
    The law establishing the vice-chancery court, makes the vice-chancellor a conservator of the peace. As such, he is clearly authorized to take a recognizance in a criminal case, otherwise his authority to conserve the public peace would be inoperative.
   Mr. Justice Thacher

delivered the opinion of the court.

The single question presented in this case, is whether the vice-chancellor is authorized by law to take the recognizance of a person charged with a criminal offence. The act of the legislature, establishing an inferior court of chancery, in the northern part of the state, (Acts of 1842, ch. 3, § 3,) constitutes the vice-chancellor a conservator of the peace. This is but a legislative iteration of the constitution, which provides, that the judges of all the courts of the state shall, in virtue of their offices, be conservators of the peace. Const, art. 4, § 22. Within the duties and powers of general conservators of the peace, from the earliest periods, have been included the power to commit all breakers of the peace, or to bind them in recognizances to keep it, or to answer for offences committed against it.

The judgment of the court below must be reversed, the motion directed to be overruled, and the cause remanded.  