DEALE v. ESTEP.—3 BLAND. 431

regulated, makes a clear distinction between a subpoena ad respon-
dendum, and a subpoena ad testificandum, by designating the first
specially; and then, in the same section, allowing to the secretary
a different fee for "every subpoena and return.'' But as the sec-
retary was then the register in Chancery, as well as the clerk to
the higher Courts of common law, it may be supposed, that these
last * mentioned kinds of subpoena were only those which
issued from the Courts of common law. But the same law, 437
in a subsequent section, allows to the sheriff a fee for " serving a
subpoena," without making any allusion whatever to the Court
whence it may issue; it also allows to the sheriff a fee for execut-
ing a "Proclamation of Rebellion," a process known only to the
Court of Chancery, whence it is sufficiently evident, that it was
then considered to be the duty of the sheriff to serve subpoenas
as well as to execute all other process issuing from the Court of
Chancery. 1763, ch. 18.

The Acts of Assembly regulating officers' fees under the govern-
ment of the Republic are, in this respect, entirely unequivocal.
For, in those paragraphs in which the fees of the register in Chan-
cery are regulated, the subpoena ad respondendum is, by name, set
down as the first item for which he is to be allowed a fee; and
then he is allowed another fee "for every subpoena and return;"
which clearly shews, that those two kinds of subpoenas were issued
from the Court of Chancery; and that the register was to be com-
pensated for each. And then, in other sections, by which the
sheriff's fees are regulated, it appears, that he is to be allowed a
fee "for serving a subpoena and return." October, 1777, ch. 10
and 13; October, 1778, ch. 17; November, 1779, ch. 25. There is,
it is true, no designation of the kind of subpoena, or of the Court
whence it emanates, for which he is to be thus compensated; but
then the phrase is general, and sufficiently comprehensive to em-
brace all kinds of subpoenas, as well as all those issuing from the
Court of Chancery as from other Courts. By the same laws the
sheriff is allowed a fee for executing the process of a "Proclama-
tion of Rebellion," which, although now abrogated, 1785, ch. 72,
s. 26; it is well known could then be issued only from the Court of
Chancery. The late Act for regulating the fees of certain officers,
1826, ch. 247, is silent as to sheriffs' fees; and therefore, affords
nothing illustrative of the question now under consideration.

From these legislative enactments it is clearly deducible, that it
was then considered as the duty of the sheriff to execute subpoenas
and all other process emanating from the Court of Chancery. And
besides, it appears from the records of the Court itselt, to have
been the constant practice and usage for the sheriff to execute all
subpoenas ad respondendum, ad testificandum, and duces tecum, which
issued from it, as well as attachments. And it also appears, that
in taking a party into custody, under an attachment, it had always