Herrick v. Manly
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of trespass for false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The cause was tried on the twenty-fifth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and three, before Mr. Justice Kent, at the Eensselear circuit. The plaintiff called Samuel Hawley, a constable, and proved by him, that he arrested and imprisoned the plaintiff by order of the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The cause was tried on the twenty-fifth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and three, before Mr. Justice Kent, at the Eensselear circuit. The plaintiff called Samuel Hawley, a constable, and proved by him, that he arrested and imprisoned the plaintiff by order of the defendant. The counsel for the defendant then asked the witness by whose authority he made such arrest and imprisonment ? whether it was not by virtue of an execution issued by a justice of the peace, delivered to him as constable,…
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court. An application is now made for a venire de nova, on the ground of misdirection on the second point of defence.
The defendant having been the mere bearer of the writ (which was an execution in his own suit) from the justice to the constable, can neither be considered as a - bailiff, or deputy, *within the letter or spirit of the [*258] statute, and, of course, not entitled, under the general issue, to give the special matter in evidence, by way of justification. The testimony, as it was offered, was, therefore, properly rejected. There is, however, a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Coats v. . DarbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1849