1778-11-02 (static/transcriptions/1778/11/005.jpg)

1778. 4 Term. [Monday] Nov. 2.

If the Sheriff were bound to Obey this Precept, which he was, if it was not void, then One of two faults had been committed, either it had been falsely return’d that Ingram was taken, (supposing that was clearly express’d by the words “Having Executed”) when he was never taken; Or after having been taken, he was negligently suffer’d to be at large, but this Return not being the words of the Sheriff, no more proved the One, than it proved the other.
We did not determine the Precept to be void, because it was unnecessary to determine that point, and it might affect other causes: But we strongly inclined to think it was void and not meerly voidable, because a precept had not first issued to levy the money on the Goods of Ingram, and we were of opinion that was necessary, by the Charter of the Mayor’s Court giving, in a separate clause, the power to Issue a Precept to imprison the body, after it appear’d there were not goods to satisfy the Judgment.