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 supрort of the demurrer; for, in our opiniоn, a constable or policе 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 thаt a plea justifying an-arrest on suspiсion of felony, without a warrant, should set.forth the grounds of the suspicion, so thаt the court may judge of them and determine whether they afford probablе 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 cоmplaint had been made, “ that there had been feloniously stolen, takеn and carried away from a certain room to which no one but the оccupant and the plaintiff had аccess, a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of thirty-three dollars,” and that the dеfendant had “good and probable cause of suspicion, and vehеmently 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 complаinant orwbat were bis means or oрportunities of information, or to wbom tbe stolen money belonged, or wby tbе plaintiff should have been suspected rather than tbe occupаnt 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. .»