Arrants v. Dunlap
Arrants v. Dunlap
Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
We are of opinion that the Commissioner proceeded correctly. According to the construction given, in M’Clure vs. Vernon, (2 Hill, 433,) to the 4th and 7th clauses of the Act of 1788, there existed a distinction between the powers of the Commissioner of Special Bail in mesne and in final process. In cases of arrest under mesne process, he could, under the 4th clause, try the question of fraud in the schedule, so far as to judge whether the prisoner’s oath should be believed or not, and whether, therefore, he should be discharged : while, under the 7th clause, relating to prisoners in execution, his power to discharge was only in the absence of any accusation of fraud, &c.; and it would seem that the accusation alone was enough to require the intervention of a jury.
But this distinction could no longer obtain after the Act of 1833, which does not recognize it, and, in all probability, was intended to obviate the difficulties arising out of it, and to do it away. The preamble sets out that, as there was no mode prescribed for empannelling a jury under the Act of 1788, some provision ought to be made for that purpose. It is then declared, “that whenever a prisoner, confined on mesne or final process, applying for the benefit of the Act aforesaid, shall be accused by the plaintiff, or his agent, of fraud, or of his having given an undue preference to one creditor to the prejudice of the plaintiff, .or of having made a false return, or
Proceedings of the Commissioner confirmed;
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.