Trespass, for assault and false imprisonment. Plea, the general issue with a brief statement that the defendant arrested and detained the plaintiff under legal process. Verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s counsel in opening the case to the jury-stated that he claimed and proposed to show that the defendant in making the arrest used unnecessary and excessive violence.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1895-12-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1935
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
Evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was known by the defendant to be a violent and dangerous person was competent. In arresting and detaining such a person, forcible measures might be proper and reasonable which in the case of a person of a different character would be unwarranted.
¶2
"Whether the evidence offered of the defendant’s character for violence and of his conduct in making a previous arrest had any legitimate bearing on the issue submitted to the jury, was a
*382
question of remoteness determinable at the trial term. Its exclusion was not error.
Cook
v.
New
Durham, 64 N. H. 419;
Hilliard
v. Beattie, 59 N. H. 462, 465.
