PATILLA VS THE GOVERNOR, 5 Port. 232

GOLDTHWAITB, J. The proceedings in this' case are too erroneous to he attempted to be supported. The case seems to have originated under a mistaken impression, that the County Court had jursi-diction of the offence specified in the forty-sixth'

section of title taxes. This

section provides — “if any assessor or tax collector, shall make any false return of any list of taxable property, with a view to defraud the State or county of the revenue, he shall forfeit and pay double the amount of the sum, which it was his' duty to'have returned; and shall moreover be liable to a prosecution for fraud, and on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned, not less than three months, by the verdict of a jury, and shall be, ever thereafter, incaple of holding any office of profit, honor or trust, within this State-” We deem it sufficient to say, that no part of this' act, gives to the County Court, jurisdiction of any offence committed in contravention of it.

This in no way resembles a prosecution by mo-' tion, under the seventy-sixth

section of the same title; by virtue of which the County Court has jurisdiction to entertain a motion against a delinquent tax collector and his sureties, for failing to collect and pay over, the county tax, within the time prescribed by law. The judgment of the Court below, is reversed. Aik. Dig. 417. Aik. Dig. 423.