Case ID: add_1/html/0324-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
    June Term, 1797.
    Pennsylvania v. Charles Kerr, Richard M'Anulty, James M‘Anulty, and John M'Anulty.
    THIS was an indictment for a riot in assaulting and beating William Stuart.
    
    
      John M'Anulty was an apprentice to William Dunning, and run away from his service. Dunning published an advertisement of his escape, offering a reward for taking and securing him. Stuart went with the advertisement, to the house of an uncle of John M'Anulty, about eight or nine of the clock, in the evening of the 31st December, 1796; there found John M'Anulty in company of the others indicted; and seized John, on the authority of the advertisement, as a runaway apprentice. Stuart swore, that John M'Anulty and the others beat, kicked, and bruized him.
    Brackenridge, for the defendants,
    objected to shewing the advertisement, and contended, that the master could not give authority by advertisement, to take his runaway apprentice; for "an act for the regulation of apprentices” points out a particular proceeding in case of apprentices absconding. At common law, the master himself might take the apprentice, but could not enter the house of another, and take him by violence. Even an officer with process cannot break open a door. The mailer has an action on the case.
    
      Galbraith. This objection, which might be made by the owner of the house, lies not in the mouth of the defendants, who were not the owners.
    1 St. L. 540, 541.
    
      Ib. 542.
    
   President.

If Mr. Brackenridge require it we will reserve the point; but, at present, we have little doubt. At common law, a mailer had a right to take up his runaway servant; and, for this, as for any other lawful purpose, might enter peaceably into any house, unless forbidden by the owner. Any person with authority from the master might do the same. If he abuse this authority, he is answerable. An advertisement is a general authority; but he who acts under it, does so at his peril; that is, he runs the risk, that the advertisement is genuine, and that its publisher had authority. The domestic authority of parents and masters must be supported, as essential to the peace of society, and contributing to a due subordination to the authority of government. The act of assembly does not change the common law, but gives a further remedy.

This point was not further pressed. But, there being evidence for the defendants, contradicting the force sworn to, the jury returned a verdict, not guilty.