STATE vs. DOZIER, 1 Overt. 223

Per Curiam. The first ground taken by the defendant’s counsel is not tenable; the petition does not shew, that he applied to the county court for a remission of the fine; every court ought to have the power of enforcing its process: nor should this court interfere, unless in cases where improper means had been used. Application ought to have been made to the court where the fine was imposed, supposing the subpoena to have been properly issued, and served; his not knowing of the sci. fa. would not authorise the interference of this court. Actual service is not indispensable.

Upon adverting to the language of the court law, when speaking of the sci. fa. it uses the words “making known” precisely the same as in the case of bail, in which the practice is settled as it is in England. Two nihils are equal to actual service; the same practice is proper in this case. Upon the 2d, ground, the process of subpoena being void, all subsequent proceedings must of course be so. On this ground alone the petitioner ought to be relieved. Let the fine be remitted.