See FELONY.
SEARCH WARRANT.
1. To convict a person of arson in
the second degree, under section
two of article one, title three, chap-
ter one, of part four, of the Re-
vised Statutes, by which it is en-
acted that "every person who shall
willfully set fire to or burn, in the
night-time, any shop, warehouse,
or other building, not being the
subject of arson in the first degree,
but adjoining to or within the cur-
tilage of any inhabited dwelling-
house, so that such house shall be
endangered by such firing, shall,
upon conviction, be adjudged guilty
of arson in the second degree;" it is
necessary to prove that the build-
ing set fire to actually touched an
inhabited dwelling-house, or that
it was within the curtilage thereof;
adjoining in the section quoted sig-
nifies actual contact. Peverelly v.
The People,
59
2. Form of an indictment for an at-
tempt to commit arson in the second
degree, by firing a warehouse ad-
joining to an inhabited dwelling-
1. Under the thirty-fifth section of
the act of 1850, entitled "An act to
authorize the formation of railroad
corporations, and to regulate the
same," a conductor of a train is
protected against an indictment for
assault and battery, for putting out
of the cars a passenger who refuses
to pay his fare, if he use no unne-
cessary force; and where a passen-
ger has refused to pay his fare, and
the train has been stopped for the
purpose of putting him out of the
cars, the right of the conductor to
put him out is not taken away by
his then offering to pay the fare.
The Peple v. Jillson,
234
2. The relations and rights of a pas-
senger, as regards the railroad com-
pany in whose cars he travels, dis-
cussed by MULlett, J.
3. On trial of an indictment for an
assault and battery, it is a good.
defence that the complainant had
committed petit larceny, and that
the alleged assault and battery con-
sisted in arresting him therefor,
without process, and delivering him
to a public officer. The People v.
Adler,
249
4. On the trial of an indictment for
an assault and battery, it appeared
that the defendant was a conductor
on a railroad, and that the act com-
plained of was committed in forci-
bly ejecting a passenger from a car
before he had reached the station
for which he had purchased his
ticket, one ground of defence being
that the passenger had conducted
in taking bail and discharging
from custody are not judicial acts
and cannot be protected as such.
ib
3. In an indictment of a police justice
for such an offence, it is not neces-
sary to prove that the act was done
corruptly. The stature is violated
and the penalty incurred if the act
be done intentionally.
4. "Straw bail" defined by the city
judge in his charge to the jury. ib
5. Upon a question of bail before in-
indictment on a charge of murder,
where the accused, having been
committed by the coroner, is
brought before a justice of this
court on habeas corpus, examina-
tions before the coroner may and
should be looked into, to ascertain
whether a crime has been commit-
ted, and if so, the strength of the
proofs in support of it; and if
such examinations show that the
crime, if any, does not exceed the
grade of manslaughter, and a fair
doubt exists whether the defendant
has committed any felony, bail
should be taken. The People v.
Beigler,
316
rantine establishment: and where
a person had been arrested and
committed, charged with a misde-
meanor for violating such a regula-
tion, he was discharged on habeas
corpus.
The People v. Roff, 216
2. The powers of a board of health
organized under chapter three hun-
dred and twenty-four of the Laws
of 1850, considered and explained.
ib
1. An indictment for burglary in the
second degree, charging the feloni-
"ous breaking and entering of the
"house" of E. B. P., with intent,
&c., was adjudged sufficient, on
writ of error, it being held that
the word "house" in its primary
and common acceptation, meant a
"dwelling-house." Thompson v.
The People,
208
2. On the trial of an indictment for
burglary, it appeared that the buil-
ding in question was owned by G.,
that there were several apartments
in the house, all of which were oc-
cupied by tenants, the outer or hall
door being common to all the occu-
pants, and of these apartments, the
one alleged to have been broken and
entered, was occupied by W.; held,
that the apartment alleged to have
been broken and entered, was pro-
perly laid in the indictment, as the
dwelling house of W. The People
v. Bush,
2. Where a challenge for principal
cause, in such a case, had been
made and tried, and the juror had
been decided to be competent, it
was held that the trial of the chal-
lenge might be opened, even after
the juror had been sworn and taken
hls seat, and other jurors had been
called, but before evidence in the
cause had been taken, if it ap-
peared that the juror had misun-
derstood the question put to him
and had given a wrong answer, and
that the juror desired to make the
correction and to say that he could
not, under any circumstances, cor-
vict on a charge of murder; and
where, on resuming the trial of a
challenge under such circumstances
the juror repeated such correction,
|