Wade v. Chaffee

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Wade v. Chaffee

8 R.I. 224

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 6, 1865

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 R.I. 224 (Wade v. Chaffee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wade v. Chaffee, 8 R.I. 224 (R.I. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

Durfee, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. We do not think the defendant’s plea in justification is bad for the first reason urged in support of the demurrer; for, in our opinion, a constable or police officer is not bound to procure a warrant before arresting a person whom he has probable .cause to believe guilty of a felony, even though there may be’ no reason to fear the escape of such person in consequence of the delay in procuring the warrant. Davis v. Russell, 5 Bing. R. 354.

2. The rules of pleading require that a plea justifying an-arrest on suspicion of felony, without a warrant, should set.forth the grounds of the suspicion, so that the court may judge of them and determine whether they afford probable cause or not. Mure v. Kaye, 4 Taunt. R. 34 ; Boynton v. Tidwell, 19 Texas R. 118. The plea in this case states, in effect, that the defendant was, at the. time of the plaintiff’s arrest, a police officer of the city of Providence ; that he made the arrest under orders from the acting City Marshal, to whom complaint had been made, “ that there had been feloniously stolen, taken and carried away from a certain room to which no one but the occupant and the plaintiff had access, a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of thirty-three dollars,” and that the defendant had “good and probable cause of suspicion, and vehemently suspected the said plaintiff to have been guilty of, or concerned in, the stealing and carrying *226 away of tbe said money.” Tbe plea does not state wbo was tbe complainant orwbat were bis means or opportunities of information, or to wbom tbe stolen money belonged, or wby tbe plaintiff should have been suspected rather than tbe occupant of tbe room where tbe theft was committed, or in fact any of tbe more particular circumstances, if any such there were, tending to fasten suspicion upon tbe plaintiff. A plea which is so general and indefinite in its averments does not, we think, meet tbe requirements of tbe rule. Tbe plaintiff’s demurrer must, therefore, be sustained. .»

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Durfee, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. We do not think the defendant’s plea in justification is bad for the first reason urged in support of the demurrer; for, in our opinion, a constable or police officer is not bound to procure a warrant before arresting a person whom he has probable .cause to believe guilty of a felony, even though there may be’ no reason to fear the escape of such person in consequence of the delay in procuring the warrant. Davis v. Russell, 5 Bing. R. 354.

2. The rules of pleading require that a plea justifying an-arrest on suspicion of felony, without a warrant, should set.forth the grounds of the suspicion, so that the court may judge of them and determine whether they afford probable cause or not. Mure v. Kaye, 4 Taunt. R. 34 ; Boynton v. Tidwell, 19 Texas R. 118. The plea in this case states, in effect, that the defendant was, at the. time of the plaintiff’s arrest, a police officer of the city of Providence ; that he made the arrest under orders from the acting City Marshal, to whom complaint had been made, “ that there had been feloniously stolen, taken and carried away from a certain room to which no one but the occupant and the plaintiff had access, a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of thirty-three dollars,” and that the defendant had “good and probable cause of suspicion, and vehemently suspected the said plaintiff to have been guilty of, or concerned in, the stealing and carrying *226 away of tbe said money.” Tbe plea does not state wbo was tbe complainant orwbat were bis means or opportunities of information, or to wbom tbe stolen money belonged, or wby tbe plaintiff should have been suspected rather than tbe occupant of tbe room where tbe theft was committed, or in fact any of tbe more particular circumstances, if any such there were, tending to fasten suspicion upon tbe plaintiff. A plea which is so general and indefinite in its averments does not, we think, meet tbe requirements of tbe rule. Tbe plaintiff’s demurrer must, therefore, be sustained. .»

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 R.I. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-chaffee-ri-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack