Court Opinion

ID: 6613353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:19:40.964465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:25.265499
License: Public Domain

And
by the Court
The law is so upon the facts aforesaid, that the plaintiff was lawful constable and had right to break open the door and enter said house; and judgment was for the plaintiff to recover; for although said Wright was not in the house, the plaintiff had good reason to suppose he was. A constable being an annual officer, and the plaintiff being duly chosen and sworn constable in December A. D. 1781, and re-chosen again in December A. D. 1782, he continued a lawful constable, although he was not sworn again until afterwards. 1 Strange, 625, Foot v. Prows.
This judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Errors.