Coyles v. Hurtin

The sheriff tío, a conserpeace, it is his aU^persow/1 with their abettors, who oppose the i//a/n-oces°f /ff'/iaving1/ warrant to apral persons, > and committed an assault, the house/0 bled> and he- and unable to ^st/ com-" [¡^others’to s“ which the persein bled/and escape1 while he went to the bout 4 miles distant, to get a sufficient force to enable him to execute the warrant; it was held, that A, and the others were bound to aid and assist the sheriff, on his order or summons, in preserving the peace, or apprehending the offenders; and that the sheriff was to be deemed, constructively present, so as to justify A. and others to arrest the offenders, during his temporary absence, for the purpose of getting further assistance, of which fact the jury were to decide; and that if A. and others, so ordered by the sheriff to assist him, during his temporary absence for such purpose, should permit or assist the offenders to escape, they would be liable to punishment»

THIS was an action of assault and battery and false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded the general issue; but, by the consent of the attorney of the plaintiff, was to be at liberty to give any special matter in evidence, at the trial. The cause was tried at the last Orange circuit, before Mr. Jus- . ^ ° tice hpencer. The defendant was sheriff of the county of Orange, and had a warrant from a justice of the peace to apprehend five persons, on a charge of having, in a riotous and tumultuous manner, assembled together, and of having committed an assault and battery on Thomas Edsall, tkc. A witness for the plaintiff testified, that the defendant called on _ < the witness to assist mm m apprehending certain persons, against whom he had a warrant, and who were said to have taken refuge in the house of the plaintiff, near the outlet of the Drowned Lands, and who were determined to resist, by force, the execution of the warrant. When the sheriff and witness arrived at the plaintiff’s house, it was found that the men against whom the warrant was issued had effected their escape. Some persons, who were then present, charged the plaintiff with having assisted the men in making their escape, and after some conversation between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant told the plaintiff he must go with him to Goshen, before a magistrate; and the plaintiff got his horse, and went with the defendant to Goshen, which is about 4 miles from the outlet, and arrived there late in the evening. The plaintiff having rested his cause, the defendant called the magistrate, who issued the warrant, as a witness. He proved the issuing of the warrant, &c. and stated, that on the evening of the same day, the defendant brought the plaintiff to the witness, and charged the plaintiff with having refused to aid him in apprehending the men named in the warrant, and with having assisted' them in making their escape, and the witness bound over the plaintiff to answer to the charge, at the next court of general sessions of the peace. Another witness for the defendant testified, that he was present at the plaintiff’s house when the defendant came with the warrant, and read over the names of the men against whom it was issued, and asked the plaintiff if they were there, and the plaintiff said he believed some of them were there, A number of men were collected" in a room above stairs, making a great noise, and threatened to sacrifice any person who should come up. The defendant requested the plaintiff to go up stairs, and persuade the men, named in the warrant, to deliver themselves up. The plaintiff said he would not go up for a thousand dollars. The defendant then requested the plaintiff to go to the foot of the stairs, and . speak to the men; but the plaintiff refused to do so, and said the defendant might do his duty, for he had nothing to do with the men, and would not interfere. . . ■ It appeared that the plaintiff was superintendent of the works at the outlet of the Drowned Lands, and that the persons against whom the warrant was issued were labourers, employed by him, and that be had been paying and discharging them. The defendant asked the plaintiff to give him the names of the persons collected in the room up stairs; but. the plaintiff made no answer. • The defendant then said he was determined to take the men on the warrant, and. fot: that purpose would return to Goshen, and bring with him a greater force., The defendant then commanded the plaintiff the witness, and two others, to guard the house, during, his absence, and prevent the escape of the men. The defendant placed them at different posts round the house; but the witness did not recollect that any station was assigned to the plaintiff. During the absence of the defendant, in the dusk of the evening, the witness, hearing a great noise, left his post," and found the plaintiff engaged with one of the other persons placed as a guard, in a violent quarrel. During this dispute, which drew the other guard also from his post, the men who were up stairs made their escape from the other side of the house. Three of the persons left by the sheriff as a guard, but not the plaintiff) pursued them, but without success. When the sheriff returned, and found that the men had escaped, the conversation, as before stated, took place between him and the plaintiff) and he took the plaintiff to Goshen. The judge stated to the jury, that the mere refusal of the plaintiff, to aid the sheriff) would not justify the latter in arresting him, without a warrant, even for the purpose of taking him before a magistrate. That the sheriff pould not delegate to the persons left at the plaintiff’s house the power of arresting, during his absence, the men against whom the warrant had been issued. The plaintiff, therefore, so far from being bound to prevent the toen from escaping, would have rendered himself liable to an action if he had attempted to stop them. That, in his opinion, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover, but he did not think it a base for exemplary damages; that there was no ground to impute malice to the defendant, but, on the contrary, his conduct evidently proceeded from' an error of judgment alone. But the plaintiff having sustained an injury, was entitled to compensation; and the question of damages was exclusively for the consideration of the jury. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff) for 51 dollars. A motion was made to set aside the verdict, for the misdirec*tion of the judge, and as against law and evidence.