Laval v. Gell

Decided January 15, 1809

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1809-01-15

Debt on a bail bond. The defence was, that the bond was taken by the sheriff colore officii, and contrary to the stat. 23 H? 6. c. 9. It appeared, on the trial, that Hughes, the defendant in the original action, was arrested at the su‘t DeLieben & Co., in 1805. After the bail bond was given in that case, Hughes, on application to the court, for some cause-shown by him, was discharged from that arrest.

Decided 1809-01-15

Waties, J.,

¶1in the District Court of Charleston, was of opinion-against this defence, and the plaintiff bad a verdict.

¶2After hearing argument, in support of the motion in this court,, the judges were all of opinion it ought not to be granted. That the bail bond-was lawfully given for any thing that can appear as respects the bail. The bail bond was not discharged, although the defendant was discharged from his arrest. If the discharge of the defendant, from the custody of the sheriff, could be considered as-discharging the bail bond, or entitling the bail to be released from his obligation ; yet it was necessary to have applied to the District Court for an order to discharge tire bail. The bail bond cannot be defeated in this way.

¶3Motion discharged.