imprisonment

The restraint of a man's liberty. 2 Bish. Grim. Law, § 669. The restraint of a person contrary to his will. 2 Inst. 589; 1 Baldw. (U. S.) 239, 600. Any forcible detention of a man's person, or control over his movements. 3 Harr. (Del.) 418. Actual confinement is not essential, a forcible detention on the street being sufficient. 3 Bl. Comm. 127. Nor is actual manual violence. 100 Mass. 79. Words are sufficient to constitute an imprisonment, if they impose a restraint upon the person, and the plaintiff is accordingly restrained; for he is not obliged to incur the risk of personal violence and insult by resisting, until actual violence is used. 9 N. H. 493.

The restraint of a man’s liberty. The restraint of a person contrary to his will. Co. 2d Inst. 689; U. S. v. Benner, Baldw. 239, Fed. Cas. No. 14,568; Johnson V. Tompkins, Baldw. 600, Fed. Cas. No. 7,416. It may be in a place made use of for purposes of imprisonment generally, or in one used only on the particular occasion, or by words and an array of force, without bolts or bars, in any locality whatever; Pike v. Hanson, 9 N. H. 491; Smith v. State, 7 Humph r. (Tenn.) 43; Webb, Poll. Torts 259; 7 Q. B. 742; but it cannot be applied to the detention of a youth in a reform school; State V. Brown, 50 Minn, 363, 62 N. W. 935, 16 L. R. A. 691, 36 Am. St. Rep. 651. A forcible detention in the street, or the touching of a person by a peace-officer by way of arrest, are also lmpri.sonments; Bac. Abr. Trespass (D 3); Lawson v. Buzlnes, 3 Harr. (Del.) 416. See Smith v. State, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 43; Coman v. Storm, 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 84. It is not necessary to touch the person, but it is enough if he is within the power of the officer and submits; Mowry v. Chase, 100 Mass. 79. Forcibly taking a per.son in an omnibus across a city; Moore v. Thompson, 92 Mich. 498, 62 N. W. 1000; or where a person is constantly guarded by detectives so that he is at no time free to come and go as he pleases, but his movements are at all times subject to the control and direction of those who have him in charge; Fotheringham V. Express Co., 36 Fed. 252, 1 L. R. A. 474; constitute imprisonment It has been decided that lifting up a person in his chair and carrying him out of the room in which noent; 1 Chltty, Pr. 48; and the merely giving charge of a person to a peace-officer, not followed by any actual apprehension of the person, does not amount to an imprisonment, though the party, to avoid it, next day attend at a police court; 1 O. & P. 153; and if, in consequence of a message from a sheriff’s officer holding a writ, the defendant execute and send him a bail bond, such submission to the process will not constitute an arrest; 6 B. & C. 528; D. & R. 233. No other warrant is necessary for the detention of a prisoner than a certified copy of the judgment against him; In re Brown, 32 Cal. 48; or of the precept on which the arr rest was made; Atherton v. Gilmore, 9 N. H. 185. Where there is a constitutional provision that there shall be no imprisonment for debt except in cases of fraud, fraud must be found by a Jury and judgment entered in conformity therewith, in order to warrant such imprisonment; Ledford v. Emerson, 143 N. C. 527, 55 S. E. 9G9, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 362. An act authorizing imprisonment of one who obtains food and lodging without paying therefor is not an unconstitutional imprisonment for debt; In re Milecke, 52 Was^h. 312, 100 Pac. 743, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 259, 132 Am. St Rep. 968; Ex parte King, 102 Ala. 182, 15 South. 524; State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546, 32 S. W. 481, 34 L. R. A. 656; nor for contempt for wilful refusal to obey an order to pay suit money and temporary alimony pending a divorce suit; Ex parte Davis, 101 Tex. 607, 111 S. W. 394, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1140; Daly V. Daly, 80 Conn. 609, 69 Atl. 1021; State V. Cook, 66 Ohio St 566, 64 N. E. 567, 58 L. R. A. 625; Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 South. 248, 99 Am. St. Rep. 119. But contra of a statute providing for the imprisonment of one who after receiving advances commits a breach of contract for farm labor; Ex parte Hollman, 79 S. C. 9, 60 S. E. 19, 21

The act of putting or cenfining a man in prison; the restraint of a man's personal liberty; coercion exercised upon a person to prevent the free exercise of his powers of locomotion. State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149, 50 Atl. 863; In re Langs-low, 167 N. Y. 314, 60 N. E. 590; In re Langan (C. Ct) 123 Fed. 134; Steere v. Field, 22 Fed. Cas. 1221. It is not a necessary part of the definition that the confinement should be in a place usually appropriated to that purpose; it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agencies of restraint, (such as locks or bars,) but by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. See Pike v. Hanson, 9 N. H. 491. Any forcible detention of a man's person, or control over his movements, is imprisonment. Lawson v. Buzines, 3 Har. (Del.) 416.

— False imprisonment. The unlawful arrest or detention, of a person without warrant, or by an illegal warrant, or a warrant illegally executed, and either in a prison or a place used temporarily for that purpose, or by force and constraint without confinement. Brewster v. People, 183 111. 143, 55 N. E. 640; Miller v. Fano, 134 Cal. 103, 66 Pac. 183; Filer v. Smith, 96 Mich. 347, 55 N. W. 999, 35 Am. St. Rep. 603; Eberling v. State, 136 Ind. 117, 35 N. E. 1023. False imprisonment consists in the uniawful detention of the person of another, for any length of time, whereby he is deprived of his personal liberty. Code Ga. 1882, § 2990; Pen. Co.de Cal. § 236. The term is also used as the name of the action which lies for this species of injury. 3 Bl. Comm. 138

A putting gaol; confinement or

The act of putting or confining a man in prison; the restraint of a man’s personal liberty; coercion exercised upon a person to prevent the free exercise of his powers of locomotion, It is not a necessary part of the definition that the confinement should be in a place usually appropriated to that purpose; it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agencies of restraint, (such as locks or bara,) but by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. See 9 N, H. 491. Any forcible detention of a man’s person, or contro! over his movements, is imprisonment. 8 Har. (Del.) 416.

Detention of another against his will, depriving him of the power of locomotion.5 Compare PRISON. Confinement of the person in anywise; as, keeping a man against his will in a private house, arresting or forcibly detaining him in the street. 8 In the penal legislation of Arkansas, the word " imprisonment," used alone, means imprisonment in a county jail or local prison. Confinement in a penitentiary is not meant, unless expressly so stated.^ In Louisiana, ''imprisonment," unqualified, in penal statutes, is used in contradistinction to " imprisonment at hard labor." " Duress of imprisonment. A compulsion by an illegal restraint of liberty, until one does some act, as, seal a bond.' See further Duress. False, or imlawfiil, imprisonment. Any confinement or detention of the person without sufficient authority. i" > Brown v. Maryland, 13 Wheat. 437 (1837), Marshall, Chief Justice. 2 Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 445 (1868), cases, Swayne, J.; 1 Story, Const. § 669. See also 8 Wall. 131; 14 Mo. 33.5; 9 Rob., La., 324; 1 Story, Const. § 949; Federalist, No. 30. • 103 U. S. 168; 21 Pa. 175; 98 id. 104. « See (Jreenfleld v. People, 74 N. Y. 283 (1878). » United States v. Benner, Baldw. 239 (1830). •IBl. Com. 136; 3 id. 127. ' Cleaney v. State, 36 Ark. 80 (1880). 8 State V. Hyland, 30 La. An. 710 (1884). May consist in detaining anotlier by threats of violence, thereby preventing him from going where he wishes by a reasonable apprehension of personal ■danger. 1 A violation of the right of personal liberty. May arise by executing a lawful process at an unlawful time, as, on Sunday. Remedies: habeas corxius, and an action for damages,^ qq. v. An. action will lie for the misuse or abuse of process, beyond the fact of arrest and detention. ^ Imprisonment for debt. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any State.. on Federal process..' where imprisonment for debt is abolished. The State course of proceeding is to be followed.* " No crime known to the law brought so many to the jails and prisons (one hundred years ago) as the crime of debt, and the class most likely to get into debt was the most defenseless and dependent, the.great body of servants, of artisans, of laborers." ° See Arrest, 2; Commitment; Felony; Labor, 1; Prosecution, Malicious.

Confinement of