Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 N.C. 528

State v. . Lunsford

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1879

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1879-06-05

INDICTMENT for False Imprisonment tried at Spring Term, 1879, of Macon Superior Court, before Gudger, J. The bill charged that the defendants, Wiley Lunsford, Leander Bateman and Nelson Rogers did make an assault upon one Robert Garrison, and him the said Garrison, unlawfully and injuriously, against his will, and against the laws of the state and without any legal warrant, authority,, or reasonable or justifiable cause whatsoever, did imprison and detain, &c. The jury…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1993

5 state decisions

201879188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*530 Ashe, J.

¶1 False imprisonment is the illegal restraint of the person of any one against his will. The common law was so jealous of the personal liberty of the citizen, that it was regarded as a heinous offence, and the infringement of this right in England under certain circumstances was visited with severe punishment. False imprisonment generally included an assault and battery, and always at least a technical assault; and hence the form of the indictment, which is for an assault and battery and false imprisonment; though there may be a false imprisonment without touching the person of the prosecutor, as where a constable showed a magistrate’s warrant to the prosecutor and desired him to go before the ■ magistrate, which he did; without further compulsion. This was held to be a sufficient imprisonment, because the officer solicited a warrant for his arrest, and in going with him, he yielded to what he supposed to be a legal necessity. But there must be a detention, and -the detention must be unlawful. 3 Bl. Com., 127.

¶2 The prosecutor in this case went voluntarily with the defendants with the expectation of a reward for his trouble. Instead of walking to the point of destination, a short distance from his house, he preferred to mount on the crupper ■of one of the horses ridden by some of the party, and after .going about one-fourth of a mile and discovering that he was the victim of a hoax, he complained of the uncomfortable mode of transportation, and dismounted without objection from any one. He was left all the while to the exercise of his own free will. There was no violence, no touching of his person, no threat, no intimidation of any sort. And the ruse employed by the defendants to decoy him from his house we do not think was such a fraud as to impress the transaction with the character of a criminal act. It seems to have been one of those practical jokes that is sometimes practiced without any intention of doing harm, or violating the law; and we are of the opinion that there-was no *531 violation of the criminal law in this case. , There is error. Let this be certified, &c.

¶3 Error. Reversed.

/81/nc/528 · .json · Public domain