Majority
p. 127The People vs. John Odie. The People vs. James Finn.
Headnote
Assault and Battery.These were cross indictments. It appeared by the testimony of the prosecutor, and others, that Finn was, an
p. 128objected; to their examination.
officer, and in that capacity had received an execution to be executed against Odie. That he went to Odle’s house to execute it, that he found him engaged leading his horses up the alley to his stables. That Finn came up ani^ seized him by the collar, and' choked him, and tore his clothes, &c.
If A. an fleer, has a process a-gains! B. on •arresíed, and -assauii and togout duct to other ■officers, o» being arrested, ■cannot be admiUed' '
The testimony upon the part of Finn, went to show that came peaceably up to Odie, to execute a process he had then in his possession : that he told Odie he had an execution against him ; that Odie swore he did not care for him ; that the money had been paid and the judgment on which the execution had issued three days ag0) and that he would not go to the magistrates, &c., and Odie had committed the first assault upon Finn, in a violent and outrageous manner.
The testimony being contradictory, and nearly balancj or(jer t0 sh0w the conduct of Odie to other officers ’ on their executing process upon him, D. Graham and Wilson, counsel for Finn, called a number of constables in attendance on the court.
Maxwell, District Attorney,
“You cannot go into evidence, of á par- “ ticular fact that occurred at a different time and place, “ to explain the transaction now under consideration.— “ The witness cannot be heard. It is a simple question of “ fact for the jury to decide, whether Finn seized Odie by “ the collar, without explaining his business, as sworn to « by him, or whether Odie assaulted Finn, and refused to “ go " with him, after Finn told him he had a process “ against him.”
The jury acquitted Odie, and found Finn guilty.
'i'he court sentenced him to pay a nominal fine and no costs.