#### David Rankin, Plaintiff in Error, v. William A. Beaird, Sheriff, Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO ST. CLAIR.

The legislature can by an act release a person from imprisonment who has been convicted of forgery, though one-lialf of the fine imposed against him, goes to the person attempted to be defrauded by the forgery. The sheriff releasing the convict, under such an act, is not liable for an escape.

Blackwell, for plaintiff in error.

T. Reynolds, for defendant in error.

Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Wilson.

This action is brought against Beaird, as sheriff of St. Clair county, for $1000, for the escape of William D. Noble, who was committed to his custody upon a conviction of forgery, at the May term of the circuit court of St. Clair county, by which he attempted to defraud Rankin of $1000. The judgment of the court was, that he should be fined $2000, one half to Rankin, and stand committed till the fine and costs were paid. In January, 1823, the legislature passed an act requiring the sheriff of St. Clair county, who was Beaird, the defendant in error, to discharge Wm. D. Noble out of custody, which he accordingly did. On the trial of this cause, Beaird plead the act aforesaid in bar of the action, to which plea Rankin demurred, and the demurrer was overruled by the court, and judgment rendered for defendant. It is said that the statute relied upon by Beaird, is unconstitutional, because, by discharging Noble out of custody, it destroyed a vested interest which Rankin had in the judgment against him. It is unnecessary to inquire what interest Rankin had in the fine imposed on Noble, because, whatever interest he originally had in that, he has yet. It would be absurd to contend that he had a vested right in his imprisonment, and this act has no other effect than to discharge him from imprisonment.

It may be questioned whether Rankin had any vested interest in the fine till it was collected; but if it is admitted that he had, this act does not destroy it, but leaves him to his action. See the authorities referred to in the case of the County Commissioners v. Coles, to which this is in some respects analogous.*

The judgment of the court below is affirmed. (1)

Judgment affirmed.

*

Ante, page 154.

(1)

If a third person had acquired a vested interest in the fine, or in the costs *164of the suit, neither the legislature nor the Governor had power to divest him of it. Holliday v. The People, 5 Gilm., 216. Rowe v. State, 2 Bay, 565. Exparte, McDonald, 2 Wharton, 440. United States v. Lancaster, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 64, 5 Bac. Abr., 288.