Smith v. Joiner
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was an action on the case. The declaaation stated, in substance, that the plaintiff, as Sheriffs Deputy, at --, in the County of Chittenden, on the 6th day of Nov. 1792, arrested one B. on sundry executions, &c. and then and there required the defendants to keep the said B. for the space of twenty-four hours.That the defendants neglected to keep the said B., and suffered him to escape.-That suits had been brought against him for the escape of the said B., and he had…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case. The declaaation stated, in substance, that the plaintiff, as Sheriffs Deputy, at --, in the County of Chittenden, on the 6th day of Nov. 1792, arrested one B. on sundry executions, &c. and then and there required the defendants to keep the said B. for the space of twenty-four hours.That the defendants neglected to keep the said B., and suffered him to escape.-That suits had been brought against him for the escape of the said B., and he had been compelled to pay, &c. Plea-Not guilty. produced in evidence the deposition of Charles Dewey, who swore that on the 6th…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
it is necessary for the plaintiff to shew that he was a legal Sheriff’s Deputy, by producing his warrant from the Sheriff of the County; but it is not necessary to shew that he had returned the writ.
Fay, for plaintiff, stated that on a former trial of this cause, the defendant’s counsel conceded that the plaintiff was legal Sheriff’s Deputy — that the present exception, therefore, operated a surprise.
On an intimation from the Court that the cause would be continued, the defendant’s counsel waived their objection.
The execution in favour of Carpenter was then read. — It was for the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wright v. BourdonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878