Case ID: h-mch_4/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chase, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1799.
    Brookes vs. Chesley.
    The writ of capias ad respondendum which issued in this case, was served on the defendant during his attendance on Calvert county court as a juryman. Upon affidavits made and filed,
    
      Mlty moved to discharge the defendant from the ar= ¡rest.
   Chase, Ch. J.

The jurymen and witnesses, during their attendance on the court, are privileged from arrest? but it is a privilege of the court, and not of the party. Calvert county court, whose business might have been impeded by the arrest, could have discharged the defendant from it; but as soon as he was discharged from attending the court, he would be liable to be taken again on the same process. This court cannot discharge the defendant. His privilege ceased as soon as the county court discharged him from attending as a juryman. If this court were to discharge him, it would put the plaintiff hack without any fault of his, but by the fault of the sheriff in serving the process at an Improper time.

Motion overruíeb»