The proceedings seem to be regular. Let the attachment issue. Attachment awarded.
Note. See The People v. Needles, Ante 361.
People ex rel. Duncan v. Hallett, 3 Ill. 566, 2 Scam. 566 (1840)
Dec. 1840
·
Illinois Supreme Court
3 Ill. 566, 2 Scam. 566
The People of the State of Illinois, ex relatione James M. Duncan, Clerk of the Supreme Court, v. Moses Hallett, late Sheriff of Jo Daviess County.
Motion for Attachment.
Where a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue against an officer, for neglecting to return process, was served twenty days before the return day, by leaving a copy of the rule with the officer, and he acknowledged the service, and no cause was shown, an attachment was awarded against him.
March 1, 1841. On this day, the relator produced the order of this Court, requiring the defendant to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him, for neglecting to return certain fee bills and executions for costs, heretofore committed to him for collection; and a copy of the order with the following return endorsed thereon:
*567 “ Served the within upon Mo ses Hallett, this 5th day of February, 1841, by his acknowledging service, and leaving him a copy of the within.
“ Alexander Young, Sheriff Jo Daviess County.”
J. Young Scammon, for the relator.