that any private person may lawfully apprehend any person whom he may catch in the attempt to commit any felony, and take him before a justice to be dealt with according to law."

"I have now adduced abundantly sufficient authorities to prove that the general assertion in the paper, (in the Times) that a private individual is not justified in arresting without a warrant' a person found committing a misdemeanor, cannot be supported. On the contrary, those authorities very strongly tend to show that any private individual may arrest any person whom he catches committing any misdemeanor. It is quite true that I have been unable to find any express authority which goes to that extent; but it must be remembered that where the question turns on some common law rule, there never can have been any authority to lay down any general rule; each case must necessarily be a single instance of a particular class; and, as in larceny, notwithstanding the vast number of cases which have been decided, no complete definition of the offence has ever yet been given by any binding authority, so in the present case we must not be surprised if we find no general rule established."

"But when we find that all misdemeanors are of the same class; that it is impossible to distinguish in any satisfactory way between one and another, and that in the only case (Fox vs. Gaunt) where such a distinction was attempted, the court at once repudiated it; and when, on the question whether a party indicted for a misdemeanor was entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus, Lord Tenterden, C. J., said, in delivering the

judgment of the court, 'I do not know how, for this purpose, to distinguish between one class of crimes and another. It has been urged that the same principle will warrant an arrest in the case of a common assault. That certainly will follow': Ex parte Scott, 9 B. & C. 446. And when, above all, the same broad principle that it is for the common good that all offenders should be arrested, applies to every misdemeanor, and that principle has been the foundation of the decisions from the earliest times, and was the ground on which Timothy vs. Simpson was decided; the only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the power to arrest applies to all misdemeanors alike, wherever the defendant is caught in the act.”

These authorities fully demonstrate that Sec. 2 of our Procedure Act is a useless enactment, of a nature to mislead. It can be of no effect whatsoever, except in offences punishable upon summary conviction, not otherwise provided for, as to the apprehension of offenders. If any person has the right to apprehend without warrant any one found committing any indictable offence, it was certainly unnecessary to say that a peace officer, or the owner of the property, on or with respect to which the offence is committed, has that right.

It has been held that where a statute gives a power to arrest a person found committing an offence (and these are the terms of Sec. 2 of the Procedure Act, and of the corresponding sections of the Consolidated Criminal Acts), he must be taken in the act, or in such continuous pursuit that from the finding until the apprehension, the circumstances constitute one transac

tion: Hanway vs. Boultbee, 1 C. E. & P. 350; R. vs. Curran, 3 C. & P. 397; R. vs. Howart, 1 Mood. 207; Roberts vs. Orchard, 2 H. & C. 769; and therefore, if he was found in the next field with property in his possession suspected to be stolen out of the adjoining one, it is not sufficient: R. vs. Curran, 3 C. & P. 397; but if seen committing the offence it is enough, if the apprehension is on quick pursuit: Hanway vs. Boultbee, 4 C. & P. 350. The person must be immediately apprehended; therefore, probably the next day would not be soon enough, though the lapse of time necessary to send for assistance would be allowable: Morris vs. Wise, 2 F. & F. 51; but an interval of three hours between the commission of the offence and the discovery and commencement of pursuit is too long to justify an arrest without warrant under these statutes: Downing vs. Cassel, 36 L. J. M. C. 97.

The person must be forthwith taken before a neighbouring Justice, and, therefore, it is not complying with the statute to take him to the prosecutor's house first, though only half a mile out of the way: Morris vs. Wise, 2 F. & F. 51; unless, indeed, it were in the night time, and then he might probably be kept in such a place until the morning: R. vs. Hunt, 1 Mood. 93.

But no person can, in general, be apprehended without warrant for a mere misdemeanor not attended with a breach of the peace, as perjury or libel: King vs. Poe, 30 J. P. 178; and a private individual cannot arrest another, without warrant, on the ground of suspicion of his having been guilty of a misdemeanor; nor can, in this case, constables and peace officers:

Matthews vs. Biddulph, 4 Scott N. R. 54; Fox vs. Gaunt, 3 B. & Ad. 798; Griffin Coleman, 4 H. & N. 265. Neither can any person, not even a constable, arrest a person without a warrant on a charge of misdemeanor: R. vs. Curran, 1 Mood. 132; Reg. vs. Phelps, Car. & M. 185, except when such person is found committing the offence by the person making the arrest, in the cases, as ante, where the statute specially authorizes him to do so. And though any person can make an arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, or put down a riot or an affray, yet, after the offence is over, even a constable cannot apprehend any person guilty of it, unless there is danger of its renewal Price vs. Seeley, 10 Cl. & Hin. 28; Baynes vs. Brewster, 2 Q. B., 375; Derecourt vs. Corbishley, 24 L. J. Q. B. 313; Timothy vs. Simpson, 1 C. M. & R. 757; Reg. vs. Walker, Dears. 358. In Reg. vs. Light, Dears. & B. 332, it appeared that the constable, while standing outside the defendant's house, saw him take up a shovel and hold it in a threatening attitude over his wife's head, and heard him at the same time say, "If it was not for the policeman outside I would split your head open;" that in about twenty minutes afterwards the defendant left his house, after saying that he would leave his wife altogether, and was taken into custody by the constable, who had no warrant, when he had proceeded a short distance in the direction of his father's residence: the prisoner resisted and assaulted the constable, for which he was tried and found guilty, and, upon a case reserved, the Judges held that the conviction was right, and that the constable had the right to apprehend the defendant.

"A constable, as conservator of the peace," said Williams, J., “ has authority, equally with all the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, to apprehend a man where there is reasonable ground to believe that a breach of the peace will be committed; and it is quite settled that where he has witnessed an assault he may apprehend as soon after as he conveniently can. He had a right to apprehend the prisoner, and detain him until he was taken before Justices, to be dealt with according to law. He had a right to take him, not only to prevent a further breach of the peace, but also that he might be dealt with according to law in respect of the assault which he had so recently seen him commit."

Arrest, without warrant, for contempt of Court.Judges of a Court of Record have power to commit to the custody of their officer, sedente curia, by oral command, without any warrant made at the time: Kemp vs. Neville, 10 C. B. N. S. 523; 31 L. J. C. P. 158. This proceeds upon the ground that there is in contemplation of law a record of such commitment, which record may be drawn up when necessary: Watson vs. Bodell 14 M. & W. 70; 1 Burn's Just. 293; for the like reason no warrant is required for the execution of sentence of death 2 Hale, 408. If a contempt be committed in the face of a court, as by rude and contumelious behaviour, by obstinacy, perverseness, or prevarication, by breach of the peace or any wilful disturbance whatever, the Judge may order the offender to be instantly, without any warrant, apprehended and imprisoned, at his, the Judge's, discretion, without any further proof or examination : 2 Hawkins, 221; Cropper vs. Horton, 8 D. & R. 166; Rex vs. James, 1 D. & R.