Kelsy v. Wright

1 Root 83

Opinion

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.