Daniel, Judge, after stating briefly the facts as above, proceeded: — It seems to us, that the instrument offered as a ca. sa. cannot be considered in that light, because in form it is essentially different from a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum; and what puts it beyond doubt is, that it is directed to the sheriff or jailor. The jailor, as such, is not an officer to whom process ever issues to make an arrest. It does not appear that Woodard was surrendered in discharge of bail, or that he had been arrested on a ca. sa.
The instrument appears to us to be a mittimus ; but Batchelor had no authority to commit before Woodard was legally in custody. We are of the opinion, that the judge erred in considering the instrument a ca. sa. We, therefore, are of the opinion, that there must be a new trial. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.