66 Me. 350 | Me. | 1876
This is an action of trespass for the alleged illegal arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff by defendant. The arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff by warrant issued by the defendant was proved.
The defendant justifies the acts complained of on the ground that they were lawfully done in his capacity as justice of the peace for the county of Lincoln. He alleges that the plaintiff was duly summoned to appear before him on the 21st day of October, 1874, to give his deposition in the case of Henry P. Cotton v. Charles C. Smithwick, then pending in the supreme judicial court in said county; that- the plaintiff refused to appear before him and testify ; that he adjourned the taking of his deposition to four o’clock in^the afternoon of [the same day, and issued a capias and caused him to be arrested and brought before him at the time of adjournment, when he refused to be sworn and testify in the case ; that he therefore adjudged him guilty of contempt in refusing to be sworn and to testify, and sentenced him to pay a fine of twenty
The facts being admitted, the presiding judge ruled that the relationship between the defendant and said Cotton did not disqualify the defendant from taking the deposition and acting in. the premises as alleged, and that the action could not be maintained. The case comes before this court on exceptions to this ruling.
Having caused the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff, it is incumbent on the defendant to establish his justification. His counsel maintain that he has done so on two grounds :
I. That the duties of the defendant in taking the deposition, and in doing the acts complained of, are ministerial, and that the relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff in that suit did not disqualify him to act in the premises.
II. That if the relationship did disqualify him, the parties to the suit are the only parties who can raise the objection ; that the witness has no right to raise it, and no right to refuse to testify on that ground.
Had the defendant jurisdiction to take the plaintiff’s deposition in the case, and to adjudge him guilty of contempt in refusing to be sworn and to testify, and to sentence him to pay a fine therefor, and cause Mm to be imprisoned in execution of the sentence ?
"Whether a justice of the peace, in taking a deposition, acts ministerially or judicially, the authorities do not agree. In this state, in Cooper v. Bakeman, 33 Maine, 376, 379, there- is a dictum of Shepley, C. J., that “justices of the peace in taking depositions, act in a ministerial, and not in a judicial capacity.” The question was before the court in Massachusetts, in Chandler v. Brainard, 14 Pick. 285, but was not decided. It was passed with the fol
R. S., c. 107, § 2, is as follows: “a justice of the peace or notary public may take depositions to be used in a pending cause, in which he is not interested, nor then nor previously counsel.” Is a relationship within the sixth degree, to one of the parties, an interest in the cause, within the meaning of this statute ? We think it is. R. S., c. 1, § 4, clause xxii, provides that “when a person is required to be disinterested in a matter in which other persons are interested, a relationship to either of such persons by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth degree according to the rules of the civil law, or within the degree of se'cond cousins inclusive, except by the written consent of the parties, will disqualify.” The justice
The counsel for the defendant cites and relies on Chandler v. Brainard, 14 Pick. 285, before cited. In that case the court decided that the justice, who was a son-in-law of one of the plaintiffs, was not disqualified to take the deposition under statute of 1797, c. 35, § 1, which provided that a deposition “may be taken before any justice of the peace, not being of counsel or attorney to either party, or interested in the event of the cause.” Massachusetts had no statute rule of construction applicable to the case; and the court held that, at common law, “interested in the event of the cause” meant a pecuniary interest which would disqualify one from being a witness. The same question, whether relationship disqualified, was before the court, in that state, again in Culver v. Benedict, 13 Gray, 7, but not decided, the court holding that as the defend ant to whom the justice was related was not a party in interest, but made a party in a bill in equity as a stake-holder only, the justice was not disqualified.
In Bean v. Quimby, 5 N. H. 94, it was held that an uncle to one of the parties to the suit was disqualified to act as a justice in taking a deposition.
We could not give to the statute a construction which would
Failing in his first ground of justificationj can.the defendant justify on the second ground relied upon, that the plaintiff had no right to raise the question of relationship as a disqualification of the defendant to act in the premises ? The real question is not whether the plaintiff has a right to raise the objection of relationship, but whether the defendant makes out his justification. He attempts to justify the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff. The burden is on him to show his jurisdiction. If he was disqualified to take the deposition he had no jurisdiction over the plaintiff and had no authority to determine that he had been legally summoned to appear before him to give his deposition in the cause, and to issue a capias and cause him to be arrested and brought before him to testify. He had no jurisdiction to adjudge the plaintiff guilty of contempt, and to sentence him to pay a fine therefor. There cannot be in law a contempt of the authority of a magistrate in a case in which he has no jurisdiction to act. The defendant, being disqualified to act in taking the deposition, was acting illegally and has no justification for the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff. Clarke v. May, 2 Gray, 410. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray, 120. Exceptions sustained.