The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-11-13

DlsTRlcT SUPREME CoURT-Gencrdi Tcrm.-
The Justices ofthe Supreme Court sat in banc
yesterday to consider, under the authority
contded to them by the act OF Congress Of
June 10th, 1865, the contested election cases
growing out Of the recent municipal election
10 this city, and usually known as the "fifth
1.-THE report will be found elsewhere.l
ATTORNEYS ADMITTED.
On the motion OF Mr.. Hine, Mr.. A. 7. Britton
of the Rhode Island bar, was admitted to
l/Barrctt VS. Heider. Justice OI.n read the
opinion Of the Court sustsinlng the court be.
low as follows;
THE nI1HT or Ak est.
This suit comes before us as bill OF excep-
lions. The material facts In the case raises
the questions OF law upon which the Justice
below ruled, and Is as follows: 1.-THE court
here states the facts as published In this paper
at the time the case was heard below. De-
fcndaut told officer OF police that he believed
the plaintiff had stolen his watch and mo ney,
and wanted him searchedj that the next day
defendant and OHlcer Kelly arrested plaintiff,
afterwards dismissed, and suffered muc.i from
his imprisonment, and that the arrest was
without q warrant.
reducing the damages to which tn J plaintiff
might Otherwise be entitled that the oficer
who undertook to make the investigation OF
the case on the complaint OF the defendant
arrested the plaintiff on his own RESPONSE
bility and not at the instance nor upon the
SOLICITATION oil the uClcuuhut.
The first two exceptions may be summarlly
dismissed upon the ground that neither of
them were couched In language which would
enable the justice who tried the cause to see
the issue or not, and 1t was thereupoP right
and proper to override the offer. the true
in Woodwork, Justice, Jackson W CardwelI,
sth Johns, $50, and In rruer VS.. Jackson, sth
Johns, sos, by Chancellor Kent, to this effect:
That a bill OF exceptions does not draw the
,Vh nt m n ~ m m atl
but only the points to which II is taken, and
that the party excepting must lay his finger
on those points which might arise, either In
admitting or denying evidence, as In matter OF
law arising from fact not denied, II which
either party was oyeTruled by the court. The
substance OF the fret two exceptions q that
the defendant offered to show by X lily, the
police officer, as to the grounds 90 which he
made the arrest. Now It Is quite OF ious that
II the officer could make any declarations In
tiff, which could be giyon In evidence, 1t is
quite apparent that he could make a thousand
other declarations at that time of no earthly
words, this offer should have been to prove
what he Baid, but an offer to prove that he
said something, not specifying what that was,
the Justice could see whether It was or not
pertinent to the issue to be tried.
The third exception raises the question
sought to be raised by the counsel for the d..
1.-THE defendant offered to show to the .iry,
In Justification of the defendant, that I mere
was no malice; that after the investigation of
the larceny by said Kelly, and q few seconds
said defendant oounseled and advised with
said Onicer Kelly, and the said officer stated
to the said defendant that he was sure the said
plaintiff had committed said larceny and that
when said plaintiff was arrested he, the defend
ant acted bona ,dfe upon tho opinion and
advice Of said Kelly, and no believes from
complaint against said Kelly.n
This exception presents the question whether
a party who prooures the arrest Of = person
without warrant can Justify or excise the act
by showing that he thus acted upC a the adv Ice
of police officer. We think not [See Amer.
lean Law Register, asst Ross Va, Tames.l
| This Is, perhaps, all that need be said In this
| case; but, as the question has frequently
arisen In this court as to tho authority of pri-
| waite persons and police Officers to arrest with
| out warrant II may DO useful to state what
we deem the law upon the subject
LIST. As to the right OF private persons to ar
rest, 1t has long been the settled law, that all
| persons whatever who are present when n
felony is committed or dangerous wound Is
| given, not only may Spprehend the offender,
but that It Is their duty to do 80. Arch. yr.
RI, 81 Hawk =; o., lo'i East 60. jI7i
So any person whatever, IL an array be
made to the breach OF peace, may, without
warrant, restrain any Of the offenders In order
/ to preserve the peace, but even 1t would seem
that this restraint cannot be continued after
| the peace has been restored SEQ Phillips Va,
| Truil, III John, isO,
| arrest q person charged with n crime of less
degree than felony without warrant II not
| committed IN their presence, An officer has
| no right to arrest person without warrant
| guilty OF q mlsdemeanOF after the offence has
been Committed, See Proper vs.. Adler. 3 Park
Hawkins, p. u, l2li 40 and y, As5,
Both private persons and officers may ares
| without warrant persons guilty of fclonIes
| UpOn this subject Chiel Justice Savage, II
he 81 Wind, 1853, states the case as follows
My understanding of tho law Is, that ii a fel
Ony has In fact been committed by the persOI
yrrested, tho arrest may be justified by an!
one without warrant, whether there Is tint
10 obtain one or not IfAn innocent person 1
arTestcd upon suspicion by q private indiyid
ual, such Individual Is excused, IL a felony Il
| fsGt was committed and there was REASONABLE