Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-02-29
LOCAL NEWS.

IN lne case, OF the United States in relation of
j. Is. Adams agt. Chauncey A. Hoor. Adams
rented two rooms from Hoor, who Is q tenant
for years, and on the 1st of December Adams
was served with notice to quit the premises
at the expiration OF the month, (3lst.) On the
10th Of December Adams was elected by Hoor
the latter acting on the advice of his counsel
The following day Justices Johnson and Bates
came to the premises, and after hearing the case
they fined Hoor fifty dollars, and one Brown
(Who was an accessory twenty five dollars
tor foroible entry and detainer under the stat
utes OF Richard lst Hoor sought relief by GER
tfordri, which commanded the justices TO GER
uiy their record 10 the court; but in conss-
quence of irregularity and defects in the record
the court arrested the proceedings. 1t is un-
derstood that Adams may CONNIE ce proceed
ines de moro to enforce the payment of the fine.
AT the last term Of the criminal court Hoor
was indicted for an assault and battery on
Adams, and he submitted his case when he
off red to show that Adams had insulted his
wife; but this offer was objected to on the part
of the prose cution, and the objection was sus-
tanned by the court. Adams subsequently
Withdrew the objection, and expressed desire
that The matter should be fully investigated,
when Hoor was allowed to withdraw his plea
and the case goes to the next term of the court
The decision announced by Judge Fisher was
as follows:
This is proceeding, not for the purpose of
restoring to the relator the property OF which
he claims to have been possessed, but for the
purpose of imposing fine and imprisonment
upon the defendants, and is based upon certain
British statutes now OF force in this District-a
criminal and not a civil proceeding.
From time immemorial private rights in Eng
land, whence we derive our system of juris-
prudence, have theoretically AT least been held
in high respect and yeneration. When the
common law of Great Britain was in its in
fancy; when society was rude and comoara-
lively unoTganized, and when courts of Justice
were more rarely open and less accessible and
less facile in their forms of proceeding than
the advance of civilization has made them.
meE were frequently cons trained to rely upon
the strength of their own right arms and the
aid of fhntr fpfr do a
maintain.tb individual claims to the possess
siors 10 which by justice and right they were
entitled. Hence 1t was dc clarsd by the courts
in the early days of English Jurisprudence that
no man was punishable at the common law
for the exercise OF force or the OF the strong
hand in demanding and obtaining the T0sses-
sion OF lands and :enements into which tne
ngIt OF entry was given hlm by law. In other
words, every man had the right 10 take pcs
session of his own lands, and 10 tnrn out and
keep out all intruders ard irterlJpers by force
so long as he should measure that force by the
necessity Of his case in securing ANA retaining
possession OF his lawful property.
In the exercise Of this natural right, he was
not responsible 10 society in the way of indict-
ment or other criminal proceeding. In the
progress of society, howe yer, it was found that
individuals i'll having recourse TO violent
methods OF doing themselves Justice inspired
terror in the community, and thereby dis u bed
the public peace and tranquility. For this
reas Oh IT, was deemed prudsn by the English
laWgi yerS OF the fifteenth century TO nut an end
10 the enforcement Of ri hts of entry By iadidual
power, and remit 10 all persons seeking res tltu-
ton OF their estates in lands 10 the DO erful
IT mPdles OF law. Before these euactnants, he
& one was liable 10 indictment for forcible en- try
who bad no right OF entry upon the lands Of
which ne had taken torc!tle possession, wide
Dalt 297, | Hawk, p. g.. eh. Gi, secs l. . 3 2
Bac. Abr. Ii. For. Ent.l Among the Romans
il was otherwise There the civil law, in its
anxiety TO preserve and protect the peace aud
E'cd orCer OF the community, had made it
criminal oflenSe, even il the rightful owner of
an estate, TO take possession OF it By force and
violence.
TIE first modification Of the common law of
England on the SUBJECT of forCible entry was
that V hicL tcck place in The reign OF Richard
20. by the enactment or that " hich is known
as he statute Of 5 hIch. ?, chap. ;. The words
OF his statute are as follows: sAnd also the
kim deferdeth that none from henceforth make
dny entry into any lauds and tauements but in
case where entry is given him by the law, and
IN snch case not with strong hand nor wi b
multitude OF people: but only in peaceab!e aud
easy manner; and il any man from henceforth
do 10 the contrary, and thereof be duly con-
Yicted, he shall be pEnished by Imprisonment
OF his body and thereof ransoDed At the kings
will" This statute. y will Ds seen, made il a
criminal ofiense III him VINO, though entitled BY
law to his entry into his own land, should
make that entry with strong hand, and the
punishment was imprisonment, &c. As no
provision is made in this act for the mode of
conviction, nor any specific tribunal before
which the offender was 10 be tried, it follows
that the mode Of proceeding and the tribunal
in which Ii was to be conducted was to b. the
same which we provided by the common law
against him who had made forcibe entry with
out right; and that was by Indictment before a
courthaying criminal jurisdiction. This .atrte
makes no provision for restitution to the party
injured nor does II provide against torcible
detainer unaccompaEled by forcible entry
Thus the law remained for period Of some
ten years, when TO meet the supposed necessi-
ties of society and to remedy the omissions in
the former act, it was enacted by Is r. ?. c. 2
that 'son complaint OF forcIbie entry, into lands
or other possessions whatsoever, 10 the lus-
tices OF the peace or any Of them, the justices
or Justice take sufficient power OF the county
and 60 to the place where the force is made.
and II they lind any that hotd such place forcibly
cfter such entry, they shall con, init them IN ina
next Jail, there to abide. conrtct by he record of
the same justices or justice, until they make
fine and ransom; and that the people of the
county ana the sherit shall assist, &c, on
pain OF Imprisonment and fine"
This slatnte does not apply TO the case of
forcibie detainer merely where The entry was
not foIcible, but only to the ease of forcible
entry followed by forcible detainer and the
justices, in order to have jurisdiction for the
purpose Of Furnishing the offender, must act
upon complaint, and must also, when they ar
rive on the premises, find The offender still re-
naming there and holding forcibly
Thus it will appear that whereas at the COM
mon law before the passage OF either of these
entry and detainer but HIM who made the en-.
try without righr, and then only by indictment
before court OF general criminal jurisdiction;
now by the effect of these two statutes of Rich.
try with strong hand by him who had right of
entry, and jurisdiction is conferred upon in
Ierior officers of the law to execute those
statutes. lnasmuch then as this new offence
was created by the statute which did not exist
at the common law, and the more especially
as the summary proceeding therein provided
for is penal proceeding before special iuris-
diction, the record OF the justices must show
every thing necessary to bring the defendant
within the purview OF the statute Proctor
VS.. the State ). Harr 3S7.l There N ust first
CT all be a complaint made, and that complaint
must be in writing, and be q part of the record
III the case; it should he made as other erinli al
complaints are made under oath; and as il is
TO stand IN the place OF an indie tment like that
proceeding 1t must be certain to d certain in
tent in general: that is TO say 1t must be certain
as to the facts. crcums and in tent ccnsti.
tnting the offence. Now oEe of the principal
facts making up the offence OF forclbie entry is
loeality-the place where the offence is charged
to have been committed: and the law is well
settled that IN an Indictment for this offence If
there be the slightest variance betweea the in |
dictment and the evidence as 10 the name OF |
the parish or place W here the houss is situated
or III any other description given Of IL, thA |
yaraB ce will be fatal, (Ren VS.. Riddley, Z |
and Z, 5l5l II is equally fatal If the place |
stated is an uEcertaia or Impossible place or |
one which does not exist within the justices |
jurisdiction: il is also insufficient in q cona /