The contract in the record seems to have been made, approved, and filed, in the mode prescribed by the act approved February 23, 1883, еntitled “An act to better secure payment of fines and costs in criminal cases in the courts of this State.” — -Acts 1882-83, p. 166. The purpose of this statute is to enable convicts to procure securities for the рayment of “ the fine and costs ” incidental to any сonviction for a criminal offense in the courts of this State. Such fine and costs not being a debt within the meaning of the constitutional provision, that “no persоn shall be imprisoned for debt,” it has been held that a сonvicted defendant could be lawfully sentencеd to imprisonment, or hard labor, for the non-paymеnt of such liabilities. In Lee v. State,
The evidence in this case shows, that the finе and costs had been satisfied by the defendant before he left the service of the prosecutоr, the law referring the satisfaction rendered to this liаbility, for which alone the defendant could be held undеr the contract. The only thing remaining due was a debt for advances made. For such a liability he could not be held to involuntary service. The evidence did nоt authorize a conviction, and the court erred in refusing to charge the jury to find the defendant not guilty, if they believed the evidence.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded.