Hackett v. King

<p>Though a person is arrested under a legal warrant and by a proper officer, yet if one of the objects of the arrest is thereby to extort money, or enforce the settlement of a civil claim, such arrest is a false imprisonment by all who have directly or indirectly procured the same or participated therein, for any such purpose; and a release or conveyance of property obtained by means of such arrest is void. And the discharge of the person arrested without being taken before a magistrate for examination and the failure to return the warrant are circumstances competent to be considered as bearing upon the question whether the release or conveyance was obtained by duress. And if the presiding judge, on the trial of a case where the validity of a release or conveyance of property, executed by a person under arrest, is in question, has stated the above principles of law to the jury, no exception lies to his refusal to instruct them that the discharge of the person arrested without examination and the failure to return the warrant of themselves rendered the arrest illegal and established the fact of duress.</p> <p>Parol evidence to prove the issuing of a warrant and the arrest of a person thereon is incompetent, unless it is shown that neither the warrant nor a copy of it can be produced.</p>