State v. Fifield
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, charging that the defendant, at the time and place named, &c., “ with force and arms did wilfully obstruct one Joseph Powers, he, the said Joseph Powers, then and there being a deputy sheriff,” &c., “ and then and there being in the due service of a writ of attachment, as he was therein commanded, the same being lawful process in a civil case.”
Read the full summary
Indictment, charging that the defendant, at the time and place named, &c., “ with force and arms did wilfully obstruct one Joseph Powers, he, the said Joseph Powers, then and there being a deputy sheriff,” &c., “ and then and there being in the due service of a writ of attachment, as he was therein commanded, the same being lawful process in a civil case.” The indictment then sets out the writ, and proceeds, “ which writ is duly indorsed according to law, by having the name of Lewis Smith, the plaintiff,” &c., “indorsed in writing,” &c. At the trial the defendant excepted to the indictment…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
Tbe first exception to the indictment is, that it sets forth no offence within the terms of the-statute. The statute is, “ If any persou shall wilfully assault or obstruct any officer,” &e., “ in the service of any lawful process or order in any civil case,” “he shall be punished;” &c.
The indictment charges the defendant with having wilfully obstructed Joseph Powers, a deputy sheriff, in the service of a writ, which is set out, and averred to be lawful process in a civil case. The indictment follows the words of the statute, and seems to bring the offence very clearly within its terms.
The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
- Richards v. GilmoreSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841