Case ID: johns_10/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warner against Shed.
    NEW YORK,
    May, 1813.
    hlsfficev executing its process: tor the officer is examine into the validity of its proceedings, or the Stsprocess.
    THIS was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. The Mr. Justice Thompson, at the Ontario circuit, in September, 1812.
    The defendant being a constable, in the execution of his office, received a warrant of commitment, under the hands and seals of . . . e three justices of the peace, against the plaintiff by virtue of which took and cniiied the plaintiff to the county gaol, where he was imprisoned, 1
    
    The warrant stated that the plaintiff and another had been brought before the justices, and convicted, at a court of special sessions, of an assault and battery, and fined 25 dollars, and sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment, &c.
    
      The defendant also gave in evidence the conviction, as follows: And having heard the proofs and allegations of the said complainant of the said Josiah and James, do adjudge that they are guilty of the facts charged against them in said complaint, and do sentence them, respectively, to pay a fine of 12 dollars and 50 cents, in conformity to the statute in such case made and provided, and that they respectively be imprisoned 30 days in one of the gaols of Oneida county, mid stand committed until judgment be complied with,” See.
    
    The defendant relied on the warrant for his justification; the judge ruled that it was insufficient, but told the jury they ought to find nominal damages merely, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for six cents.
    A motion was made to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial.
    
      Sill, for the defendant,
    contended that the warrant was good in substance, and a sufficient justification to the officer. By the 10th section of the act, sess. 24. c. 70. three justices are authorized to hold a special sessions, to try and punish persons for petty larceny, breaches of the peace, &c.
    But even if the warrant was bad for irregularity, yet the commitment, being by a court of record, having jurisdiction, it was sufficient for the officer. And if there had been no warrant at all, but a mere order of the court, grounded on the conviction, it would be a sufficient protection to the defendant. If the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the process, the officer is justified, notwithstanding any irregularity in the proceeding. 
      ° 1
    
      Kirkland, contra,
    insisted, that the warrant was irregular and void, and therefore no justification to the defendant. A commitment against two for a joint fine is void on the face of it, and where the warrant is irregular and void on the face of it, it is no justification to the officer, though the court has jurisdiction.
    
      
      
         1 Hale & P. C. 583-595. 2 Hawk P. C. 185. & 15.4 Bl. Com. 300. 2 Hale's P. C. 122, 123.
    
    
      
       2 Stra. 710. 10 Co. 76.
    
    
      
       3 Hawk. P. C. 128. &. 16. 11 Co, 42, 43.
    
   Per Curiam.

The warrant stated that the plaintiff and another had been convicted at a court of special sessions, for an assault and battery, and it mentioned the three justices before whom the plaintiff had been brought. Three justices have jurisdiction, in certain cases, of breaches of the peace, and have power to fine and imprison for the same. They had jurisdiction. therefore, of the subject matter, and that was enough to jnstif~ the constable in serving the mitt~'inus, fQr he was nqt bound t~ examine mtp the validity of the pr9ce~dings and of the process. It was sufficient for hini that three justices had jurisdiction to try, convict and imprison for an assault and battery. (Hill v. Bateman, Stra. 710. case of the Marshalsea, 10 Co. 76. a.)

Whether the conviction was erroneous was not material to him, The warrant being under seal, and coming- from three justices having power in the case, it formed a complete justification. The verdict ought, therefore, to be set aside, with costs tp abide the. event of the suit.

New trial granted.