|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BEALE v. ESTEP. 439
authorized to enforce its decrees, by like process as the court of
common law upon their judgments, by writs which are directed
to the sheriff; (u) it has been placed upon a footing with the court
of common law as to the mode of compelling sheriffs to make return
of executions; and as to their being entered not called by consent ;(w)
sad it has had extended to it the same facilities of transmitting its
process to the sheriffs of distant counties, and of enforcing a return,
that had been given to the courts of common law. (z)
It is clear, that commissioners, acting under a commission from
this court, directing them to take evidence, have authority to issue
a summons to call a witness before them; and if the witness should
fail or refuse to attend and to testify, it is equally clear, that he may
be forced to do so, or be punished by this court. The process, by
which the witness is called before the commissioners, is a subpaena;
and whether it issues direct from this court itself, or from its com-
missioners, it is a process alike legal; and one to which obedience
may be enforced. For, the Legislature baring expressly recognized
the right of the commissioners to summon witnesses before them,
it necessarily follows, that the court must have the power of enforc-
ing their attendance there, (y) The public good as well as the
immediate interests of the parties requires, that, in cases of contu-
macy to the law, obedience should be enforced with as little delay
and expense as possible. If such a subpaena were to issue direct
from this court, there is no doubt that it might and ought to be
executed by the sheriff if required; and I know of no law or rea-
son why such process should not be executed by him when issued
by the commissioners, who, in that respect, act as a part of the
court itself, (z) The sheriff being a public sworn officer, his return
to all process is conclusive until the contrary is shewn; and be-
sides, as he is charged with the execution of many similar duties
over his county, such summons may, in most instances, be more
readily and economically served by him than by any indifferent
person.
I am therefore of opinion, that it was the right and duty of the
sheriff to serve the summons issued by the commissioners in this
case. And as a clear and necessary consequence of its being his
duty to execute such process, it follows, that he is entitled to the
(u) 1785,ch. 72, s. 25—{w) 1794, ch. 54. 1789, eh. 42; 1802, ch. 109—{x) 1817,
ch. 139; 1819, ch. 144 s. 3.—(y) 1785, ch, 72, s. 16; Maccubbin v. Matthews, 2
Bland, 252; Bryson v. Petty, 1 Bland, 182, note; Anonymous, 14 Ves, 450. (z} Cooth
v. Jackson, 6 Ves. 30; Forum Rom. 117; Bryson v. Petty, 1 Bland, 182, note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
