Warner v. Shed | Cases | Westlaw

*138 Where a court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, it is sufficient to justify the officer executing its process: for the officer is not bound to examine into the validity of its proceedings, or the regularity of its process.¹

THIS was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Thompson, at the Ontario circuit, in September, 1812.

The defendant being a constable, in the execution of his office, received a warrant of commitment, under the hands and seals of three justices of the peace, against the plaintiff, by virtue of which he took and carried the plaintiff to the county gaol, where he was imprisoned.

The warrant stated that the plaintiff and another had been brought before the justices, and convicted, at a court of special sessions, of an assault and battery, and fined twenty-five dollars, and sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment, &c.

*139 The defendant also gave in evidence the conviction, as follows: “And having heard the proofs and allegations of the said complainant of the said Josiah and James, do adjudge that they are guilty of the facts charged against them in said complaint, and do sentence them, respectively, to pay a fine of twelve dollars and fifty cents, in conformity to the statute in such case made and provided, and that they respectively be imprisoned thirty days in one of the gaols of Oneida county, and stand committed until judgment be complied with,” &c.

The defendant relied on the warrant for his justification; the judge ruled that it was insufficient, but told the jury they ought to find nominal damages merely, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for six cents.

A motion was made to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

But even if the warrant was bad for irregularity, yet the commitment, being by a court of record, having jurisdiction, it was sufficient for the officer. And if there had been no warrant at all, but a mere order of the court, grounded on the conviction, it would be a sufficient protection to the defendant. If the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the process, the officer is justified, notwithstanding any irregularity in the proceeding. (2 Stra. 710. 10 Co. 76.)

The warrant stated that the plaintiff and another had been convicted at a court of special sessions, for an assault and battery, and it mentioned the three justices before whom the plaintiff had been brought. Three justices have jurisdiction, in certain cases, of breaches of the peace, and have power to fine and imprison for the same. They had jurisdiction, *140 therefore, of the subject matter, and that was enough to justify the constable in serving the mittimus, for he was not bound to examine into the validity of the proceedings and of the process. It was sufficient for him that three justices had jurisdiction to try, convict and imprison for an assault and battery. (Hill v. Bateman, Stra. 710. Case of the Marshalsea, 10 Co. 76. a.)

Whether the conviction was erroneous was not material to him. The warrant being under seal, and coming from three justices having power in the case, it formed a complete justification. The verdict ought, therefore, to be set aside, with costs to abide the event of the suit.

New trial granted.