Odger's English Common Law

LIABILITY OF A POLICE CONSTABLE. 481
had been issued for the apprehension of the plaintiff has been
held to be sufficient ground for reasonably suspecting that a
felony had been committed. 1
By statute it is his duty to arrest without a warrant all
offenders whose names and residences cannot be obtained, 2
and all persons loitering in any place during the night, whom
he suspects of having committed or being about to commit
felony. 8 But where a particular statute authorises a constable
to take into custody without a warrant any one offending
against its provisions within his view, he must show that
he actually saw the offence committed. 4
With regard to arrests for misdemeanours, the police officer
strictly ought to have the warrant with him at the time. 5
But in practice the arrest is often made on a warrant known
to be in existence, which is read to the prisoner as soon
as the officer in whose possession it is can be fetched.
A man, however, cannot legally be arrested for a breach of
a county council by-law or for refusing to give his name
and address, unless such power is expressly conferred by
statute. 6
The warrant of a Court of competent authority will protect
any ministerial officer employed in executing its process.
Where a Court has jurisdiction over a cause before it and in
disposing of it proceeds erroneously, the party who takes
steps to enforce the judgment will not be liable to an action
nor will any officer or servant of the Court who executes
process under it. 7 Where, however, the Court has no juris-
diction over the cause before it, the whole proceeding is bad,
and any one who enforces the process of the Court therein
will be liable to an action for false imprisonment
;
8 for he is
presumed to know the law and therefore to be cognisant of
the want of jurisdiction. Protection is, however, extended
1 Creagh v. Gamble (1888), 24 Ir. L. R. 458.
• 2 & 3 Vict. c.< 47, s. 63.
» 24 & 26 Vict. c. 96, a. 104.
4 Bowditch v. Balchin, suprd ; TrebecJt v. Croudace, [1918] 1 K. B. 158.
Codd v. Cabe (1876), 1 Ex. D. 352.
8 See, for instance, s. 229 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19
Vict. c. 120); and the Parks Regulation Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 15), s. 8.
' Andrews v. MarrU (1841), 1 Q. B. 3 ; Thomas v. Hudson (1845), 14 M. & W.
353 ; Cobbett v. Hudson (1849), 13 Q. B. 497.
« Carratt v. Morley (1841), 1 Q. B. 18.
B.C.L.
31
;