Arrest

Who is liable to. All persons found with in the jurisdiction are liable to arrest, ex cepting certain specified classes, including ambassadors and their servants ; 1 B. & C. 554; 3 D. & R. 25, 833; Holbrook, Nelson & Co. v.• Henderson, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 619; attorneys at law; barristers attending court or on circuit ; 1 H. Bla. 636; see Elam v. Lewis, 19 Ga. 608; 8 Sim. 377; 16 Ves. 412; Secor v. Bell, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 52; bail at tending court as such ; 1 H. Bla. 636; 1 Maule & S. 638 ; bankrupts until the time for surrender is passed, and under some other circumstances; 8 Term 475, 534; In re Kim ball, 2 Ben. 38, Fed. Cas. No. 7,767 ; bishops (but not in U. S.) ; consuls-general; 9 East 447; though doubtful, and the privilege does not extend to consuls ; 1 Taunt. 106; 3 Maule & S. 284; McKay v. Garcia, 6 Ben. 556, Fed. Cas. No. 8,844 ; clergymen in England while performing divine service ; Bacon. Abr. Tres pass; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100 (which extended the provisions of 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, § 23, so as to include ministers not of the Establish ed Church) ; electors attending a public elec tion ; Swift v. Chamberlain, 3 Conn. 537; executors sued on the testator's liability ; heirs sued as such ; hundredors sued as such ; insolvent debtors lawfully discharged; 3 Maule & S. 595; and see 4 Taunt. 631; Duncan v. Klinefelter, 5 Watts (Pa.) 141, 30 Am. Dec. 295 ; Wilmarth v. Burt, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 257; not when sued on subsequent liabilities or promises, 6 Taunt. 563; see Glazier v. Stafford, 4 Harr. (Del.) 240; Irish peers; stat. 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 67, § 4 ; judges on process from their own court ; Tracy v. Whipple, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 381; Gratz v. Wilson, 6 N. J. L. 419; marshal of the King's Bench ; members of congress and state legislatures while attending the respec tive assemblies to which they belong; U. S. v. Cooper, 4 Dell. (Pa.) 341, Fed. Cas. No. 14,861, 1 L. Ed. 859 ; King v. Cott, 4 Day (Conn,) 133; Gibbes v. Mitchell, 2 Bay (S. C.) 406 ; McPherson v. Nesmith, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 237; Lewis v. Elmendorf, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 222; Hoppin v. Jenckes, 8 R. I. 453, 5 Am. Rep. 597 (but the exemption does not apply while a member of Congress is in his state on private business with leave of absence; Worth v. Norton, 56 S. C. 56, 33 S. E. 792, 45 L. R. A. 563, 76 Am. St. Rep. 524; nor does it give a privilege from ser v ice of summons in a civil action ; Rhodes v. Walsh, 55 Minn. 542, 57 N. W. 212, 23 L. R. A. 632; Gentry v. Griffith, 27 Tex. 461) ; mili tiamen while engaged in the performance of military duty ; officers of the army and mili tia, to some extent ; 4 Taunt. 557; but see 8 Term 105 ; Morgan T. Eckart, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 295, 1 L. Ed. 144; White v. Lowther, 3 Ga. 397 ; Ex parte McRoberts, 16 Ia. 600; Peo ple v. Campbell, 40 N. Y. 133; parties to a suit attending court ; 11 East 439 ; Coxe 142 ; Richards v. Goodson, 2 Va. Cas. 381; Hurst's Case, 4 Dall. (U. S.) 387, 1 L. Ed. 878; Ex parte McNeil, 6 Mass. 245; id., 264; Wilson V. Nettleton, 12 Ill. 61 ; Sadler v. Ray, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 523 ; including a court of in solVency ; 2 Marsh. 57 ; 6 Taunt. 336 ; 1 V. & 13. 316; Wood v. Neale, 5 Gray (Mass.) 538; or a reference; Vincent v. Watson, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 194; the former president of a foreign republic while residing in one of the U. S.; Hatch v. Baez, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 596; but a party arrested on a criminal charge, and discharged on bail,. may be ar rested on civil process before be leaves the court room; Moore v. Green, 73 N. C. 394, 21 Am. Rep. 470; soldiers; White v. Lowther, 3 Ga. 397 ; sovereigns, including, undoubtedly, governors of the states ; the Warden of the Fleet; witnesses attending a judicial tribu nal; 3 B. & Ald. 252 ; Bowes v. Tuckerinan, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 538 ; In re Dickenson, 3 Harr. (Del.) 517; by legal compulsion ; Ex parte McNeil, 6 Mass. 204 ; U. S. v. Edme, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 147 ; Page v. Randall, 0 Cal. :32; Sanford v. Chase, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 381; women; O'Boyle v. Brown, Wright (Ohio) 465; Wheeler v. Hartwell, 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 684 ; but see Eypert v. Bolenius, 2 Abb. N. C. 193 ; Blight v. Meeker, 7 N. J. L. 97 ; and perhaps other classes, under local stat utes ; married women, on suits arising from contracts ; 1 Term 486 ; 6 id. 451; 7 Taunt. 55 ; but the privilege may be forfeited by her conduct; 1 B. & P. 8; 5 id. 380; and the grounds of these early ,decisions are neces sarily affected by the modern statutes per mitting married women to contract and sue and be sued as if sole, but although the Pennsylvania. act of 1887 in section 2 author izes her so to be sued on her contract and for all torts, it has been held that a married woman is notwithstanding that section ileged from arrest under a capias; Lorenz v. Betz, 2 W. N. C. (Pa.) 274. Reference must be had in many of the above cases to stat utes for modifications of the privilege. In all cases where the privilege attaches in consid eration of an attendance at a specified place in a certain character, it includes the stay and a reasonable time for going and return ing; 2 W. Bla. 1113; Smythe v. Banks, 4

Dail. (Pa.) 329, 1 L. Ed. 854; Lewis v. Elm endorf, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. V.) 222; Crocker T. Duncan, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 278; In re Dick enson, 3 Harr. (Del.) 517; but not including delays in the way ; 3 B. & Ald. 252 ; Smythe v. Banks, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 329, 1 L. Ed. 854 ; or deviations ; Chaffee v. Jones, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 260. A person brought from one state into another under federal process in in extradition proceeding, and discharged therefrom, cannot be arrested under civil process until he has reasonable time to re turn to the state from which he came ; In re Baruch, 41 Fed. 472.

Where and when it may be made. An arrest may be made in any place, except in the actual or constructive presence of a court, where the defendant is necessarily in Attendance on business, the ing to going thereto and returning ; 3 Bla. Com. 289 ; but this privilege does not avail one brought into court on criminal process and discharged on bail ; Moore v. Green, 73 N. C. 394, 21 Am. Rep. 470. An officer may not break open an outer door to arrest one whose domicile is there; Oystead v: Shed, 13 Mass. 520, 7 Am. Dec. 172; Gordon v. Clif ford, 28 N. H. 402; aliter, under statute; Hawkins v. Cora., 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 395, 61 Am. Dec. 147 ; Phillips v. Ronald, 3 Bush (Ky.) 244, 96 Am. Dec. 216; but he may break inner doors to find the defendant when the outer door is open ; Williams v. Spencer, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 352; 8 Taunt. 250; Cowp. 1; and this includes the door of the room of a lodger ; id.; but not the inner door of the house of a stranger upon suspicion that the defendant is there ; 6 Taunt. 246. He may break the outer door of the house of defend ant, who has escaped after arrest and taken refuge there; Allen v. Martin, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 300, 25 Am. Dec. 564. It could not be made on Sunday or any public holiday; Stat. 29 Car. II. c. 7; contra (under a statute), King v. Strain, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 447.

An officer with a proper writ may stop a train to arrest the railroad engineer running it ; 20 Ohio L. J. 464 ; St. Johnsbury & L. C. R. Co. v. Hunt, 60 Vt. 588, 15 AtI. 186, 1 L. R. A. 189, 6 Am. Rep. 138.

Discharge from arrest on mesne process may be obtained by giving sufficient bail, which the officer is bound to take ; 3 Mamie & S. 283 ; 6 Term 355 ; 15 East 320; but when the arrest is on final process, giving bail does not authorize a discharge.

If the defendant otherwise withdraw him self from arrest, or if the officer discharge him, without authority, it is an escape; and the sheriff is liable to the plaintiff. -See ESCAPE. If the party is withdrawn forcibly from the custody of the officer by third per sons, it is a rescue. See RESCUE.

Extended facilities are offered to poor debtors to obtain a discharge under the stat utes of most if not all of the states of the United States. In consequence, except in cases of apprehended fraud, as in the con cealment of property or an intention to ab scond, arrests are infrequently made. See, as to excepted cases, Armstrong v. Ayres, 19 Conn. 540 ; Bramhall v. Seavey, 28 Me. 45.

Generally. An unauthorized arrest, as un der process materially irregular or informal; Russell v. Hubbard, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 654; Welch v. Scott, 27 N. C. 72 ; Somervell v. Hunt, 3 H. & McH. (Md.) 113 ; Tackett v. State, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 392, 24 Am. Dec. 582 ; Lough v. Millard, 2 R. I. 436 ; Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40, 6 Am. Dec. 200 ; or process issuing from a court which has no general tion of the subject-matter ; 10 Co. 68 ; 10 B. & C. 28; Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray (Mass.) 1, 61 Am. Dec. 381 ; Tracy v. Williams, 4 Conn. 107, 10 Am. Dec. 102 ; Flack v. Ankeny, Breese (Ill.) 187; Duckworth v. Johnston, 7 Ala. 581 ; Camp v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 171; State v. McDonald, 14• N. C. 471; Rodman v. Harcourt, 4 B. Mour. (Ky.) 230; State v. Weed, 21 N. H. 262, 53 Am. Dec. 188; Brady v. Davis, 9 Ga. 73; Gurney v. Tufts, 37 Me. 130, 58 Am. Dec. 777; Ex parte Burford, 3 Cra. (U. S.) 448, 2 L. Ed. 495; Greene v. Briggs, 1 Curt. C. C. 311, Fed. Cas. No. 5, 764; is void; but if the failure of jurisdic tion be as to person, place, or process, it must appear on the warrant, to have this effect; Bull. N. P. 83; Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 175, 21 Am. Dec. 181; Churchill v. Churchill, 12 Vt. 661; Barnes v. Barber, 1 Gilman (111.) 401; Miller v. Grice, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 147; Reed v. Rice, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 44, 19 Am. Dec. 122; Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40, 6 Am. Dec. 900; Tuell v. Wrink, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 249; State v. Tuell, id. 344; Wells v. Jackson, 3 Munf. (Va.) 458; Halsted v. Brice, 13 Mo. 171; Conner v. Com., 3 Binn. (Pa.) 38; Don ahoe v. Shed, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 326; Humes v. Taber, 1 R. I. 464; 3 Burr. 1766; 1 W. Bla. 555. The arrest of the wrong person; 2 Scott N. S. 86; 1 M. & G. 775; Melvin v. Fisher, 8 N. H. 406; Scott v. Ely, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 555; Gurney v. Lovell, 9 id. 319 ; renders the officer liable for a trespass to the party arrested. See 1 Bennett & H. Lead. Crim. Cas. 180-184.