We are pot aw'are of any law by which $he defendant in this instance is liable to pay for the main» tenance of a prisoner committed on a writ of capias ad sa-iisfactepdumi The act of 1773, cli. 4. sec. 9, relied upon for the plaintiff, seems alone to contemplate a case where the party at whose instance the pr isoner is confined, thinks proper to discharge him atid he should prove unable to pay Ibis fees. But as this case states the prisoner to be fully able to pay his fees, and that he has never been discharged Thy defendant, the court can perceive no ground on which the «Meadagí saa be made liable te the plaintiff's desgaaf»
Turentine v. Murphey, 5 N.C. 180, 1 Mur. 180 (1808)
July 1808
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 180, 1 Mur. 180
Turentine vs. Murphey
-From Orange
A civ.iitor 13 (or nance of his debtor in jail upon a ©a sa. un-^uu-ges the th/Jl0(!ebtor topuy for toance#'n
^I1S waa aK action brought by the plaintiff as keeper of the public jail of Orange county to recover of defendant amount of certain prison charges which had accrued ^ ^c detention in prison of one Joseph Street, confined at the instance of the defendant apon a writ of capias ad sa- . . r ti$faci>endum. It was agreed that Street was at the time °f his commitment and still continued to be possessed of property more than sufficient to pay for his own mainte. oance. He was in prison upon the writ aforesaid whet} t^'3 action was brought: and the question submitted to this court was, whether.the defendant was liable to the plaintiff' for the' maintenance of Street, in prison?