Rittenour sued M’Causland, before a justice of the peade, on a demand of 90 dollars for the keeping of a horse, &c. for the defendant.' The suit was'commenced by a capias ad respondendum, and the defendant was brought by the constable before the justice, according to the command of the writ. A day for the trial was fixed by the jus
The only ground for dismissing the cause was, that the capias ad respondendum had • issued , without the--plaintiff’s having filed an affidavit, pursuant to 'the statute, that he was in danger of losing his demand unless a capias issued. ' R. S. 1838, p. 366. This judgment of .dismissal for the' cause assigned must be wrong. The Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter; and supposing the process in the case ought to have been a summons and not a capias, yet all that .the defendant could ask in süch case, was-to be discharged from custody without.giving bail. He was still bound to answer to the suit, as if the process had been a summons. ‘ Besides, the motion to dismiss the suit in .this case, were it otherwise unobjectionable, came, toó late after the pleas to the action filed before the justice (1).. '
The judgment .is reversed'with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
(1).
Imprisonment for ’debt is now abolished in this state, except in cases of fraud, &e. Stat. 1842, p. 68.