¶1 The case assumes that all the proceedings of the Justice were regular, np to his failure to take the recognizance required by law for the appearance of the defendant at Court. It was irregular in the Justice not to take, and in the defendant not to give, the recognizance required by law, but the sole purpose of bringing the defendant before the Justice was to secure his appearance at Court to answer the charge. He could make no defence before die Justice, whose duty was merely ministerial, to bind him over to Court, where only he could be heard and make his defence. The defendant knew the charge, and that he must answer it before the very tribunal to which the capias brought him. He was therefore in Court, however crooked the journey which brought him there, and being there, it was the right and duty of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction and determine the case.
¶2 If one charged by indictment comes into the presence of the Court, having jurisdiction, it will, on motion, order him into custody to answer, why then shall the Court discharge from custody an offender who is not only in Court, but there under arrest, to answer the very charge.
¶3 Art. 1, sec. 16 of the Constitution, abolishing imprisonment *174 for debt, bas no application here, and capias was the proper process to bring the defendant into Court. Bat. Rev. ch. 9, sec. 3. State v. Palin, 63 N. C., 471; 65 N. C., 244; 66 N. C., 648. State v. Pate, Busb. 244.
¶4 There is error.
¶5 Pee Cueiah. J ndgment reversed and venire de novo.