Albright v. . Tapscott
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action of ¡debt .against the defendant, as sheriff of Alamance, for making a false return, tried before Bailey, J., at the Eall Term, 1861. The action was brought for the penalty -of $500.. A subpoena came to the hands of the defendant, as sheriff of Alamance county, commanding him to summon one Cynthia Bandleman, &c., as a witness for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Action of ¡debt .against the defendant, as sheriff of Alamance, for making a false return, tried before Bailey, J., at the Eall Term, 1861. The action was brought for the penalty -of $500.. A subpoena came to the hands of the defendant, as sheriff of Alamance county, commanding him to summon one Cynthia Bandleman, &c., as a witness for the plaintiff. The sheriff’s -deputy, to whose hands the. process came, summoned .one Julia Bandleman, the wife of-the defendant, in the suit, and did ¡not summon Cynthia Bandleman, and did net have an opportunity of doing so, for she was not in the county…
1Opinion of the CourtManly, J.
The return of the sheriff, which is the subject •of this action, is certainly untrue. We have held, at this term, in the-case of Tomlinson v. Tong, (ante 469) that it is snot necessary the officer should be convicted of any criminal intent.
It follows, therefore, that the return is false, in the sense of the statute, Bev. Code, chap. 105, sec. 17, .and that the defendant, in the present state ¡of the return, 3s subject to the penalty of $500. We refer to what is said in the case of Tomlinson v. Long, as containing the reasons that control our judgment in this.
The great importance of securing…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Crowder v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Stealman v. . GreenwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Rollins v. GibsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977