and has no intention to escape. Rex v. Martin, R. & R. C. C. 196. An indictment at common law, for aiding a prisoner's escape, should state that the party knew of his of fence. Rex v. Young, 1 Russ. C. & M. 291. A delivery of instruments to a prisoner to facilitate his escape from gaol was within 16 Geo. 2, c. 31, although he had been pardoned of the offence of which he was convicted on condition of transportation. Rex v. Shaw, R. & R. C. C. 526. Throwing down, in attempting to escape, loose bricks at the top of a prison wall, placed there to impede escape and give alarm, is a prison - breach, though they are thrown down by accident. Rex v. Haswell, R. & R. C. C. 458. actually made or not, shall be guilty of felony :-Held, that, in an indictment under this section, it was not necessary to set out the means which had been used by the defendant to assist the prisoner to escape. Reg. v. Holloway, 15 Jur. 825; S. C. nom. Holloway v. Reg. (in error), 2 Den. C. C. 287; 17 Q. B. 319. The act of aiding and assisting being a felony by 4 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 43, the defendant might be indicted before the principal had been tried; and the prosecution need not be instituted within one year after the offence committed, as required by 16 Geo. 2, c. 31, s. 4. Ib. The 28 & 29 Vict. c. 126, s. 37, enacts that any person who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys into any prisA warrant of a justice of the on any mask, dress, or other dispeace to apprehend a party, found-guise, or any letter, or any other ed on a certificate of the clerk of the peace, that an indictment for a misdemeanor had been found against such party, is good, and therefore if upon such a warrant the party is arrested and afterwards rescued, those who are guilty of the rescue may be convicted of a misdemeanor. Rex v. Stokes, 5 C. & P. 148 -Park. It is a misdemeanor, indictable at common law, to aid a person to escape from custody, though he was confined under the remand of the commissioners for the relief of insolvent debtors, and not on any criminal charge. Reg. v. Allan, Car. & M. 295; 5 Jur. 296-Erskine and Wightman. By 4 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 43, if any person shall deliver to a prisoner in any prison any instrument proper to facilitate his escape, such person shall be deemed to have delivered it with intent to aid and assist such prisoner to escape; and if any person shall by any means whatever aid and assist any prisoner to escape from any prison, every person so offending, whether an escape be article or thing, shall be guilty of felony :-Held, that a crowbar came within the words "any other article or thing" as used in this section. Reg. v. Payne, 1 L. R., C. C. 27; 12 Jur., N. S. 476; 35 L. J., M. C. 170; 14 W. R. 661; 14 L. T., N. S. 416. The forcible rescue of a person from unlawful custody is illegal. Reg. v. Almey, 3 Jur., N. S. 750Erle. LIII. PARDON. A. was, at the Spring Assizes of 1846, indicted for stealing a horse on the 26th day of February, 1841. He had, in 1842, been convicted of felony, and sent to the hulks, from which he was discharged in 1846. He produced a certificate of his discharge, which stated, that "J. H., who was convicted at Worcester, on the 22nd June, 1842, is this day discharged in consequence of having received a free pardon":Held, that, if this pardon had been regularly proved, it would have been no bar to the charge of horse- "whatsoever to apprehend any perstealing, as the pardon was express- son who shall be found commitly confined to another felony. Reg." ting any indictable offence in the v. Harrod, 2 C. & K. 294; 2 Cox, "night, and to convey him or deC. C. 242-C. C. R. "liver him to some constable or A convict sentenced to death for "other peace officer, in order to his felony, which sentence was com- "being conveyed, as soon as conmuted to transportation for life, re- "veniently may be, before a justice ceived a conditional free pardon in" of the peace, to be dealt with acthe penal colony :-Held, that such "cording to law." pardon did not alter the effect of the attainder in vesting his property in the crown. Church, In re, 16 Jur. 517. The 5 Geo. 4, c. 84, s. 26, protects felons who have received a remission of their sentences in the enjoyment of all property acquired by them since their conviction, and not merely such property as has been acquired by their own industry. Gough v. Davies, 2 Kay & J. 623; 25 L. J., Chanc. 677. LIV. APPREHENSION AND ARREST 1. Statutes, 602. 2. By Constables and Private Individuals. A constable is not justified in taking a person into custody for a mere assault, unless he is present at the time. Coupey v. Henley, 2 Esp. 540-Eyre. Using loud words in the street, though disorderly, is not an offence for which a party should be taken into custody. Hardy v. Murphy, 1 Esp. 294-Eyre. If a party is turning towards the wall in a street on a particular occasion, a watchman is not justified in collaring him to prevent him so doing. Booth v. Hanley, 2 C. & P. 288-Abbott. If a constable is preventing a 2. By Constables and Private Indi- breach of the peace, and any per viduals, 602. 3. Warrant of Justices, 605. 4. Bench Warrants, 606. 1. Statutes. 10 Geo. 4, c. 44, s. 7 ; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, ss. 63, 64, 65, 66 ; 6 & 7 Vict. c. 34; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 118. Under the Larceny Act, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 104; for malicious injuries to property, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 57; for offences against the coinage, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 31; for offences against the person, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 66. By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 19, s. 11, "after reciting that doubts have "been entertained as to the author"ity to apprehend persons found committing indictable offences in "the night, it is enacted, that it "shall be lawful for any person son stands in his way to hinder him from so doing, the constable is justified in taking such person into custody, but not in giving him a blow. Levy v. Edwards, 1 C. & P. 40-Burrough. arrest on a reasonable charge of A peace-officer may justify an felony without a warrant, although it should afterwards appear that no felony had been committed; but a private individual cannot. Samuel v. Payne, 1 Doug. 359. A constable having reasonable cause to suspect a person of felony may arrest him, though it appears no felony was committed. Beckwith v. Philby, 6 B. & C. 635; 9 D. & R. 487; Hobbs v. Brands comb, 3 Camp. 420-Ellenborough. A constable is justified in apprehending a person charged on suspicion of felony, if he has reasona ble or probable cause to believe that the party charged is the felon. Davis v. Russell, 2 M. & P. 590; 5 Bing. 354. demeanor, is no justification for giving him in charge to a constable without a justice's warrant; and there is no distinction in this When a private person appre-respect between one kind of misdehends another on suspicion of fel- meanor and another, as breach of ony, he does it at his peril, and is the peace and fraud. Fox v. liable to an action unless he can Gaunt, 3 B. & Ad. 798. establish in proof that the party has actually been guilty of felony. Adams v. Moore, 2 Selw. N. P. 910; S. P., Allen v. Wright, 8 C. & P. 522. If a reasonable charge of felony is made against a person who is given in charge to a constable, the constable is bound to take him, and he will be justified in so doing, although the charge may turn out to be unfounded. Cowles v. Dunbar, 2 C. & P. 565; M. & M. 37-Abbott. A constable arresting one on suspicion of felony, is bound to take him before a magistrate as soon as he reasonably can, and he cannot justify detaining him three days without going before a magistrate in order that evidence may be collected in support of the prosecution. Wright v. Court, 6 D. & R. 623; 4 B. & C. 596. A constable, having taken a prisoner on suspicion of felony, has no right to handcuff him, except he has attempted to escape, or except it is necessary in order to prevent his escaping. Ib. Watchmen and beadles have authority at common law to arrest and detain in prison, for examination, persons walking the streets at night whom there is reasonable ground to suspect of felony, although there is no proof of a felony having been committed. Lawrence v. Hedger, 3 Taunt. 14. Watchmen may imprison any person who encourages prisoners in their custody to resist. White v. Edmunds, Peake, 89-Kenyon. Suspicion that a party has on a former occasion committed a mis A woman died after a very short illness; rumours were generally in circulation in the neighborhood where she had lived that her husband had poisoned her, and a great crowd was collected in front of his house; upon which the constable of the parish, without any warrant, took him into custody, and conveyed him before a magistrate, who detained him till medical men had reported the cause of death, and then discharged him :-Held, that, if the jury was of opinion that the constable had reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the apprehension, an action could not be maintained for the arrest. Nicholson v. Hardwick, 5 C. & P. 495-Gurney. Where the crew of a Dutch ship had mastered the vessel and ran away with her, and brought her into Deal, it was held that they might be seized and sent back to Holland. Mure v. Kay, 4 Taunt. 43. If a man is found attempting to commit a felony in the night, any one may apprehend and detain him until he can be carried before a magistrate. Rex v. Hunt, 1 M. C. Č. 93. A charge to a constable, on taking a person into custody, that he has a forged note in his possession, without anything more, is defective, though the defect is immaterial, it not being necessary that the charge should contain the same accurate description of the offence as an indictment. Rex v. Ford, R. & R. C. C. 329. A constable is not justified in apprehending a person as a receiver of stolen goods on the mere asser tion of the principal felon. Isaacs v. Brand, 2 Stark. 167-Ellenborough. party who has been engaged in an affray, unless the affray is still continuing, or there is reasonable ground for apprehending that he intends to renew it. Price v. Seeley, 10 C. & F. 28. In an action by A. against B. for false imprisonment, B. justified on the ground of A. having wilfully and without excuse, within view of the constable who apprehended her, annoyed and disturbed the defendant and his family by knocking and A wilful trespass on another person's property, without doing any real damage, is not sufficient to justify the apprehension of the parties under 1 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 3 (since repealed, but re-enacted by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30). Butler v. Turley, 2 C. & P. 585; M. & M. 54-Best. A., a hawker, went to the house of B. to sell goods, and a dog of B. coming out of the house, A. knock-ringing at his door :-Held, that to ed out one of his eyes, for which B.'s wife caused A. to be apprehended-Held, that it was for the jury to say whether A. had struck the dog for his own preservation, and fairly to protect himself; or whether it was a wilful and malicious trespass on his part. To justify the apprehension of an offender under the Malicious Injuries Act, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, the offender must be taken in the fact, or on a quick pursuit. Hanway v. Boultbee, 4 C. & P. 350; 1 M. & Rob. 15-Tindal. A person justified, under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, in causing the arrest of another, must do it immediately, and he must send him by the direct road to the lock-up; for if he sent him extra viam, he would be a trespasser against the person so arrested. Morris v. Wise, 2 F. & F. 51 -Byles. A. went to a house at night, demanding to see the servant. He was told to depart, and would not. A constable was sent for, and A. went from the house to the garden. When the constable arrived, A. said that if a light appeared at the windows he would break them; upon which the constable took him into custody:-Held, that the constable was not justified in so doing. Rex v. Bright, 4 C. & P. 387Parke. A private person is not justified in arresting or giving in charge of a policeman, without a warrant, a support this plea, under sections 54 and 63 of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47 (Metropolitan Police Act), it was necessary to prove the offence to have been committed within view of the constable. Simmons v. Millengen, 2 C. B. 524; 10 Jur. 224; 15 L. J., C. P. 102. A police constable of the city of London has no power, under 2 & 3 Vict. c. xciv., to take a person into custody without a warrant, merely on suspicion that he has committed a misdemeanor. Bowditch v. Balchin, 5 Exch. 378. A constable is not justified in shooting at a man whom he had seen stealing wood growing in a copse (which, if a first offence, is only a misdemeanor), although the constable has no means of arresting the man without firing, and although the stealing the wood in the particular instance amounted to felony, by reason of the man having been previously convicted several times for similar offences under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 39, these convictions being unknown to the constable at the time. Reg. v. Dadson, T. & M. 385; 2 Den. C. C. 35; 20 L. J., M. C. 57. If a constable sees an assault committed, he may recently after that assault, and before all danger of further violence has ceased, apprehend the offender; and if in so doing he is resisted and assaulted, the person assaulting is liable to be convicted of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty. Reg. v. Light, 7 Cox, C. C. 389; Dears. & B. C. C. 332; 27 L. J., M. C. 1. If a person is guilty of an assault and battery, a policeman who is present and sees the offence committed, is justified in taking the of fender at once into custody without warrant, in order to take him before a magistrate to answer for the offence; and if such a person is so taken into custody, he cannot maintain an action against a bystander for directing the policeman so to take him into custody. Derecourt v. Corbishley, 1 Jur., N. S. 870; 24 L. J., Q. B. 313; 5 El. & Bl. 188. 3. Warrant of Justices. General warrants are illegal and void. Money v. Leach, 1 W. Bl. 555. gal. Nisbett, Ex parte, 8 Jur. 1071 B. C.-Patteson. A British subject arrested abroad under a warrant upon an indictment for a misdemeanor, brought in custody to England, and there committed to prison, is not entitled to be discharged. Ex parte Scott, 4 M. & R. 361; 9 B. & C. 446. The A warrant was issued by a justice of a county, directed to the constable of the township, and generally to all her Majesty's officers of the peace in and for the county, commanding them, or some of them, forthwith to apprehend G. and convey him before two justices to answer for not obeying a bastardy order for payment of money. warrant was delivered to the superintendent of police, and had subsequently been in the possession of D., one of the police constables. Afterwards D. and S., police constables, while on duty in uniform, arrested G. under the warrant, but they had it not in their possession at the time of the arrest, it being at the stationhouse. G. was rescued by several persons, who assaulted the constables, whereupon informations for A warrant issued by a magistrate the rescue and assault were laid for the apprehension of a party to against the parties by the conanswer a charge, should state the stables, and at the hearing before specific offence with which the party justices the complaint as to the res is charged, and that information cue was withdrawn, and that for thereof was duly made on oath be- the assault proceeded with, and the fore the magistrate. Caudle v. Sey-parties were convicted:-Held, that mour, 1 G. & D. 454; 1 Q. B. 889; 5 Jur. 1196. A warrant to arrest the party "to the end that he may become bound, &c., at the next sessions," means the next session after the arrest; therefore the officer may justify an arrest after the sessions next ensuing the date of the warrant. Mayhew v. Parker, 8 T. R. 110; 2 Esp. 683. Semble, that a magistrate has the power of apprehending and of requiring bail of a libeller, and for want of it, of committing him. Butt v. Conant, Gow, 84. See Haylocke v. Sparke, 1 El. & Bl. 471; 17 Jur. 731; 22 L. J., M. C. 67. A warrant directing police officers to apprehend a party, and in safe custody to keep, so as to have his body before her Majesty's justices of the peace at the next sessions, is ill, and such custody is ille the conviction was bad, as the arrest by the constables was illegal, they not having the warrant in their possession at the time. Galliard v. Laxton, 9 Cox, C. C. 127; 2 B. & S. 363; 31 L. J., M. C. 123. Held, also, that the withdrawal of the information as to the rescue was no bar to proceeding with the complaint as to the assault. Ib. On a Sunday.]-The exception, in 29 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 6, that process may be executed on the Lord's day, in case of treason, felony or breach |