¶1I am inclined to concur in the foregoing opinion. The person serving the process, though not in name, is, in fact, for the purposes of the cause, a constable. The same objections really exist to his appearing and advocating at the trial as to an ordinary officer. Besides the statute says (§ 272), that he "shall be subject to the same obligations,” which, I think, ought to be construed to include disabilities.
18 How. Pr. 279
Knight v. Odell
Decided October 15, 1859
New York Supreme Court · decided 1859-10-15
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought in a justice’s court, for cutting and carrying away a quantity of hay. There is nothing either in the complaint or in the evidence offered on the trial showing the locus in quo, or even the town, county, or state, where the alleged trespass was committed.
Decided 1859-10-15