Osborn v. Sargent
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Trespass for an alleged illegal arrest and false imprisonment. • On March I, 1842, a complaint was made against the plaintiff and his partner in business as traders, alleging that they, “on the first day of August, eighteen hundred and forty-one, and from that day to the first day of March, eighteen hundred and forty-two, at said Kennebunk, did presume to be, and were, and have been common sellers of wine, brandy, rum and other strong liquors by retail and in less quantities…
Read the full summary
Trespass for an alleged illegal arrest and false imprisonment. • On March I, 1842, a complaint was made against the plaintiff and his partner in business as traders, alleging that they, “on the first day of August, eighteen hundred and forty-one, and from that day to the first day of March, eighteen hundred and forty-two, at said Kennebunk, did presume to be, and were, and have been common sellers of wine, brandy, rum and other strong liquors by retail and in less quantities than twenty-eight gallons, and that delivered and carried away all at one time, not being authorized therefor, and not…
1Opinion of the Court
The. opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Tenney J.
The plaintiff contends that the warrant to apprehend him for the offence charged in the complaint on which it was issued, was unauthorized ; and that consequently the commitment of him to prisión, which was ordered by the defendant, was a trespass, for which he is entitled to damages. Iri support of this position, he relies upon the case of the Commonwealth v. Cheney, 6 Mass. R. 347, and insists, that the decision is a construction of a statute, w'hich has. been re-enacted in the Revised Statutes of this State, and therefore has been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. CheneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810