{
  "id": 436804,
  "name": "Robert Bryan, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nathaniel S. Bates, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bryan v. Bates",
  "decision_date": "1853-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "87",
  "last_page": "89",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 Ill. 87"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. Rep. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2587309
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/14/0419-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 4236,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.599,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.448867666517163e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8038412664213241
    },
    "sha256": "f10f1138b4b1c1b0cc51a4874ffee24163660126c1ff2993d8d03cb29e1098b4",
    "simhash": "1:e74fac10b36e94bb",
    "word_count": 705
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:34.058491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Bryan, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nathaniel S. Bates, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Scates, J.\nThe action was trespass for assault, battery, and imprisonment. The court sustained a demurrer to the third and fourth special pleas, and overruled it, to the second and fifth ; and these judgments, by mutual consent, are assigned for error, both parties abiding the demurrer. We deem it unnecessary to examine the assignment of errors by defendant, in sustaining the demurrer to the thud and fourth pleas.\nThe introductory part of the second and fifth pleas enumerates and professes to answer the assault, &c., and imprisoning, and keeping, and detaining in prison ; and justifies the same by alleging that defendant was marshal of the city of Springfield, and as such, it was his duty to preserve the peace, and arrest, &c., all offenders for violations of the city ordinances; and that plaintiff was drunk, in violation of a city ordinance; that plaintiff disturbed the peace, by'violent, tumultuous, and offensive conduct, and by obscene and unusually profane and offensive language, calculated to provoke a breach of the p\u00e9ace, and in like violation of the ordinances of the city; all which were committed in his view, wherefore he gently laid his hands upon him, and imprisoned him, until he could take him before the mayor of the city according to law, which are the same supposed trespasses in the introductory part of these pleas mentioned, and none other, &e.\nWe are of opinion, that the decision of the court in overruling the demurrer to these pleas was right; that the powers of the cities, and their ministerial officers and their ministerial duties, continue, and were not changed by the new constitution ; and that under the ordinances of the city of Springfield the city marshal has the power to arrest, without warrant, any offender, for violations of those ordinances committed in his presence.\nObjection was taken to the pleas, that they do not answer the whole declaration, for that a battery is alleged, and not answered. The introductory allegation is, \u201c as to the assaulting, &c.,\u201d the said plaintiff, and imprisoning, which is broad enough. These are justified by the moliter manus imposuit, for violations of the ordinance, in presence of the defendant as city marshal, and \u201c which are the said supposed trespasses,\u201d &c., in the introductory part of the pleas, and in the \u201c declaration mentioned.\u201d The beating is included in the \u201c &e.\u201d well enough, without setting it out at length; and upon replication, plaintiff might show under the issue so tendered, that the officer exceeded his authority by an excessive battery.\nThe ordinance set forth in the plea expressly authorizes the marshal to arrest, without warrant, any offender, for violations of the ordinances committed in his view. And this is in conformity to the general law in relation to the police of the State. 1 Hale\u2019s PI. C. 587, 588; Rev. L. 1845, 190, \u00a7 202.\nThe principle laid down in the case of The People, ex rel. City of Rockford v. Maynard, 14 Ill. Rep. 419, does not affect the general police powers of the cities, nor the ministerial officers, or ministerial duties, but only the judicial powers of the mayor\u2019s court under those ordinances.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Scates, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Herndon, for plaintiff in error.",
      "W. J. Black & Stuart, and Edwards, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Bryan, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nathaniel S. Bates, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO SANGAMON.\nIn an action for assault, battery, and imprisonment, if the plea to it professes to answer the assault, \u00bf\u00a1\u2022o., and imprisonment, the Sfc. will make the plea broad enough to answer the battery complained of.\nThe powers of the cities and their ministerial officers, and their ministerial duties continue and were not changed by the new constitution. And the city marshal of the city of Springfield has the power to arrest, without warrant, any offender, for violations of certain ordinances, committed in his presence.\nThe principle laid down in the case of The People v. Maynard, 14 HI. Rep., does not affect the general police powers of cities, but has reference only to the judicial powers of mayors, acting as a court under city ordinances.\nThis cause was heard before Davis, Judge, at June term, 1853, of the Sangamon Circuit Court. See opinion for statement of the case.\nW. Herndon, for plaintiff in error.\nW. J. Black & Stuart, and Edwards, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0087-01",
  "first_page_order": 99,
  "last_page_order": 101
}