Abel v. Bennet
Connecticut Superior Court
Action on a note, conditioned, that Sarah Eerress should abide a. faithful prisoner, who was in gaol on an execution. Breach alleged, is — That she escaped on the 22d of April A. D. 1785. Plea in bar — That said Sarah, did- inadvertently go about thirty feet over the limits of said prison; yet he says, that she immediately returned into the confines of said prison and requested the plaintiff to receive and hold her in gaol, on said execution; but he wholly refused to receive…
Read the full summary
Action on a note, conditioned, that Sarah Eerress should abide a. faithful prisoner, who was in gaol on an execution. Breach alleged, is — That she escaped on the 22d of April A. D. 1785. Plea in bar — That said Sarah, did- inadvertently go about thirty feet over the limits of said prison; yet he says, that she immediately returned into the confines of said prison and requested the plaintiff to receive and hold her in gaol, on said execution; but he wholly refused to receive or hold her: And that more than two years had elapsed since said escape; and by the Statute of Limitations in such…
1Opinion of the Court
The escape was a negligent escape in the sheriff, and it was a breach of the condition of said note. The sheriff undoubtedly had his election, either to make fresh pursuit and reclaim his prisoner, or to take his remedy upon the bond; but neither the prisoner nor the bondsman, in such case, could oblige the sheriff to receive her, after the escape.
In the case of Jones v. Sheriff Abbey, Windham Superior Court, March term, 1189, adjudged- — -That the escape of a prisoner who hath the liberties of the- yard on bond, is a negligent escape, only in the sheriff.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Drake v. ChesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818