Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-07
CIVIL COURT OF APPEALS.
Full Report Of Decisions Rendered BY The
Court Tor Inc Second District
No. i2a W. L. Campbell Ct al. appellant

40. I2A w. l.. Campbell &c a.. appeilant
the district court o. palo Pinto county.
CONCLUSION or FACTS.
During ali Of the year 1881 appellant
Caben was the duly appointed, qualified
and acting marshal 81 The United states
Tor the northern district OF Texas, and
oo giIf deputy W az II. :. SIX was his
special deputy. duly authorized ~ him 10
mike the arrest hereinafter referred To-
ON the 2lst day Of September 1857 MP
pcllnnt Cabell made ai1davit IN writing De
fore q United States commissioner Tor the
northern district Of TpYas charging J0hu
Ehadlc Jim Logan, llarye Arnold aud --
Cranfli with huying robbed the United
States mall az BeubrOOk, IN imfant coun.
~. In said district. and upon this compliant
n warrant for the arrest Of said parties
was duly issued and delivered to said np.
pollaut Upon the receipt ~ said warrant
appellant teleguphud Deputy guerun, who
was ~ denton, 20 80 70 WeatherIoi1' ano
parties and on the 22nd day Uf Septem.
ber 1851 sad Guerflh ana Slsk procccdcd
70 Pal0 Pinto county which Is also lh
said northern district ~ Texas, ana there
arrested appellee. who ~ The horvc Arnold
PANIED IN the warrant upon the charge
yet forth IN the complaint. and carried
him from his home w said county, 60 bul-
las county. and there placed him in JAIL
At the time Of said arrest aud proceeding
hereunder, neither Of said deputies hnd
W tS V aft sr tried before thc c6mmi.
honer and acquitted OF the chnrgr by
him and he thereafter Instituted this suit
10 recover ~ appellant and the sureties On
hs oincal bond the damages alleged 10
have been sustained by him be- rcu@n OF
such Illegal arrest aud Imprisonment
Inc court below instructed the jury IN
effect That the arrest by the deputies uf
appellant without having thD vibrant in
their possession WAS Illegal, nnd that up
pelcc was entitled 90 recover the damage
Sustained by him by reason Of his dclcn-
tiuu under such Illegal arrest to the time
be WIS delivered 10 the marshal 40 Dll-
las, who had the warrant Under this
Appellant Cnbcll ns marshal. aud other
appellants hs bis surotiCa Tor the sum Of
$500, frUm which this appeal Is taken.
OPINION.
We believe the action u the court was !
correct lu holding that 80 ls necessary tor |
session nt the time De- mukps an arrest. /
except IA those enVs in which Doe has /
right 20 make lhe arrest without % war.
mt The only nuthOniip9 We buvc h'ru |
able tn ilnl which srun to be- directly iu !
Point arg referred 20 DO q note 10 lst AM. /
Eug. Eucy of law y. $50. ns follows.
60 lll the peace officers u Devon for nr. 1
rest Of g. fgr ltrsmssiug DOB pursuit of |
cuuirt Held that G.. wH Justified W |
Tg , an 9acti VIC ATTEMPTED 70 arrest
t..ti'u. Cold vs. tuh", D.. %. l. EG,h. /
i'2 ln order 90 justify uu arrest. vycn
Wy NIl 'NI0I'NNH NI.fINN u MAN|NIII. NNI % NllH
ermrwmr DC i- necessary timt Doc should |
have tho warrant with hIm Ht the timu /
N vs. chapman. ~ Goa 4. A.. 3. a war /
rant was issued by % justice. of g county |
and generally Goo NOD her muip4fy's ofncrrs
Of thy prugr ih ahd Cor che y1uaty. com
ma,dihs iu,m " some OF hgm. FORTH
WIN 90 Niprrhcni q, uui convey him hy
fore twu justices tu answer Tor not obey.
lhs n huiutl5 ORDER flr payment uf muu
VS. lhD warrant was delivered 20 Tie u
WHuiuiyut uI lulirc and bad Subsequent
pnlicc ,uustHtlUH. AritiUHrd ~. aud y p1ucp
tuusihhlss while un uuly iu uniform. 100.
frtted co. under ihy warrant but tAuy had
arrest it buus 90 iup station houso. a.
waN rescued bf several rcIHous Who as.
baulird ihe gu.sluhi,' uh. rupou ufor
igid against the parties hy On luatubIus |
aud 40 ihc hearing befJrr just .In coin.
PLANT iN 10 rescue wis wiU $3.50. uul
parties were convicted. llglJ. that thu
conviction was bad us ihc arrest uy thr /
constable. was Illegal. ihgy not latlsg thr
Gulliurl w. GD1toi Cor e. g. Ia
We have not uccyHs Co Those decisions ANA
are unable tp state the extent tu which
out We believe tue rule uf law indicated
by TIE note 20 be correct lu this state n
= provided by statute that 'iu executing
A warrant u arrest t shall always hp mnur
authority thc trr..t n,si, .5 .A'
quosted the warrant shall IL. p,Lu,ft,t n,
him "rodr Ut ,,lmIri prN4giifa nu
Gle ~. We also have statutory provisions
FROM ono county 10 Tn5ii"r ',I,. by ,,i,
iual pr0cpduru articles aFtv Nbt. a. |
A. uut pAprcssly provided bt .itf. ff'. 40, |
officer shall have hr Vibrant in l,i.
~ stinu we think this ls ihe .,I s.tr Iuf.rai,
ne would n,t th'rwlsr be prepared to do
ln Hail So O'Aldry D T.,.- gp q,
WIS held thar 40 wut dpfen.r ft t, ,t.W
fur falsp Abandonment tI4t ttt ,,i
supposed be- hud II r4rlas Mi -n, f.i.,,.,,'.
charge OF the lower coult ,,.Is sil.r.,W,,t
IT ls 30 defense. That no sheriff nippogrl
know That tLrr. ytp. oi' p'St,t,a ''e.. 'n
on nnv otn.r W,t,.tt,'
against O'Niisv Irfu Ia .,,l W e'.'''
furd uld placed ln Ms hInaa b., md 81.
right tn arrest O'Nlallr, n.y.. U .n, , NV "o
o. modest hu because tnru. bgli brrn mi
N sOoms 10 b. tb, as0.r.i Sb. .,.., o..
the missioner III IA .fafufa a. "'' WI Nl
mukiun an arrest M ttltu. ~" u.n|t
must show iln wnffttf if l...r tN''i ,i't
that person Is noi fa6air \ ~, wv
Tor granted thai unoitsr MY. W. U1t ~
n wstmnt nstins t''b bin Hi,n .aY, ~ hns
II silsrkg dis irnib l,i i,"Nt F,.'Nl IVY
procedure. ilOill2 TINT thc INK ', y, i,,
son whs w. .,o,i,,ic' 4 Probably tug fea.
cAproes provision r,puit,i, th, Wnl.m sN
hnv, m. ,,tt,.,tt t,fnNuh lht vh'tr 20
tla'e i,, u,I H. ~ XIV l"'e,Asloh ~ tue
Appellant also coupiais M ,he ,,r..,,,,, 80
the verdict seemingly pUnn ~. ,t,,, w
That uppeRcea damage Was not sre g
waraat boon IA T ,6aI, my Ia esgn nae tho
/