Assumpsit, and upon the general issue, the case was, that the plaintiff was sheriff of Wilkes, and received a writ at the instance of one Gilí, against one Shackelford, returnable to Iredell .Superior Court — that the plaintiff arrested Shackelford, and permitted Mm to go in search of hail; informing him that the writ would be left in the hands of the defendant, who was deputy sheriff, and to whom he, Shackelford, might give hail — and the plaintiff directed the defendant to…
¶2
ceeded : I think it is only necessary to read the statement, to discover, that whatever error whs committed in the case, was the error of the plaintiff himself. He indulged Shackelford, and not the defendant. The "latter only acted in conformity to his instructions. There is certainly no ground upon which a new trial should be granted. -