Peebles v. . Newsom

Rjsade, J. We decide the case against the defendant with reluctance, because he is only charged with u false return ” in endorsing the date when money was collected tinder execution as 6th January, when in fact it was not collected until some ten days after. This, although untrue in fact, is consistent until mistake or inadvertence. And, coupled with the fact that no fraud is charged, and especially with the fact that the amount collected was the amount returned, so that he was in no way benefitted ; it seems to be a hardship to put upon him a penalty of $500. If it had been charged that he did it de ceitfully or fraudulently, or that he derived any benefit from it from which a corrupt purpose might be inferred, it would be very different. And our first impression was that it was necessary to charge that he did it deceitfully, and if it were *475 an open question, we would probably so bold; but the contrary has been expressly decided in Ledbetter v. Arledge, 8 Jones, 475, and several other cases therein cited, that a criminal intent is not necessary; it is only necessary that the return should be untrue. Any hardship resulting from this rule may be relieved, and will be relieved by our law of amendments. If a retur» is false by mistake or inadvertence, the court will allow the ■ sheriff to amend his return, so as to speak the truth. If the return is false of purpose, then no amendment will be allowed, and the penalty will be recovered. It is of great importance that judicial proceedings and all executions and returns of process should be absolutely truthful. There is error. This will be certified. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed-