MotioN to vacate an order of arrest, heard by his Honor, Judge Tourgee, at Chambers in Guileoed county, on the 25th day of January, 1875. The defendant lived in Indiana, and had come to Greensboro’, at the request of counsel to give evidence in a certain action then pending in the Superior Court of Guilford, wherein Hittle was plaintiff, and Ballinger, the plaintiff in this action, was defendant.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1875-01-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1949
4 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
The defendant was arrested upon an order made by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Guilford county, in an action brought against him by the plaintiff for deceit, &c. The defendant resides in Indiana, and at the time of his arrest, which was a few days before a term of the Superior Q ourt of said county, he had come to said county at the request of one Hittle, who was a plaintiff in an action pending in that Court agaiust the present plaintiff (Ballinger,) as a witness for Hittle in that action. His attendance was voluntary, and he was not served with a subpoena after his arrival in Guilford county.
¶2
The authorities cited for the defendant establish that he was privileged from arrest, notwithstanding he was attending vol
*598
untarily and not under a
sicipama.
There is no way to compel the attendance of witnesses from other States, and it would be against public policy, and to discourage their attendance, if' upon their arrival here they could be arrested. The plaintiff is put in no worse condition by the discharge of the defendant than he was before. The principal authorities on the privilege of witnesses, suitors, &c., from arrest may be found cited in 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 316. Those most to the point in the present case are
Walpole
v. Alexander, 3 Doug., 45, (26 E. C. R.,) and
Norris
v.
Beach,
2 Johns., (N. Y.) 294.
¶3
Pee CueiaM. Judgment of the Superior Court affirmed.
