Case Name: Garvin v. Blocker and Malone
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1807-04
Citations: 2 Brev. 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: Garvin v. Blocker and Malone.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1807.
Garvin v. Blocker and Malone.
A justice of peace instigated a constable to execute a state’s warrant for felony, nine months after the warrant had issued, and the party who had procured the warrant in the first instance had made no recent application to have it executed, from motives of personal ill-will; and the -constable yielding to the instigation of the Justice, and moved also by personal ill-will, arrested the party against whom the warrant had issued. In this case, false imprisonment was adjudged well to lie, against both the justice and constable, although there was no cruelty exercised.
False imprisonment tried before Trezevant, ‘J., in Edgefield district. Plaintiff proved that he was taken by Malone, who pre tended to act as a constable, in Jan. 1806, who tied his hands together, and carried him to Blocker’s, where he was kept in cou-fmement some time, and then released upon his giving security to appear at court, and answer to a charge, or complaint, which had been made against him, by one Stedham, in the spring of the year 1805.
Malone, in his defence, produced his warrant for apprehending the plaintiff, which was dated 28tb March, 1805 ; and the defendants attempted to justify the imprisonment, by proving, that soon after the information was made by Stedham to Blocker, and the warrant was issued, the plaintiff was taken up on another charge, and committed to jail, until October following, when he was discharged, after which he'absconded,, until sometime in Jan. 1806, when the arrest and imprisonment in question, took place. The brother of Blocker, the defendant, and the defendant Malone, became the plaintiff’s sureties, in the penal sum of forty dollars ; and it appeared that the plaintiff promised to leave the neighborhood.
The judge charged in favor of the plaintiff, and the jury found accordingly.
Dozier, for the defendants,
moved this court for a new trial, on a variety of grounds. 1. That it did not appear that the defendants had exercised cruelty and oppression towards the plaintiff, without which they were not answerable. 2. That no malice was proved prior to the arrest. And in support of his motion, cited 1 D. and E. 536. 2 Str.
Egan, for the plaintiff,
was stopped by the court.

Opinion:
Grimke, J.,
delivered the opinion of the whole court, except Bay, J., absent. The defendants at the trial, attempted to justify the arrest and imprisonment, but failed. The warrant which had issued nine months before the arrest, was stale and insufficient. It does not appear that the informant, or prosecutor, required it to be executed after such a lapse of time. All the circumstances taken together, shew, that the justice of peace, (Blocker,) who appears to have been the moving cause of the arrest and imprisonment, was actuated by malice, in directing the constable to proceed on the stale warrant, when no recent application had been made to push, or renew it; and the constable, (Malone,) even if the warrant would otherwise have been sufficient for his justification, can claim no protection from it, because he abused his authority, by which he became a trespasser ah initio. The defendants both appear to have acted with malice, and without any justifiable cause, and there is. no good reason why a new trial should be granted.