Housh v. People

Citations

• 75 Ill. 487

Syllabus

<p>1. Waerant to arrest for criminal offense — sufficiency of affidavit. An affidavit made before a justice of the peace, that the affiant, at, etc., on, etc., “had a saddle and sheep skin stolen from his barn in said place, and that he verily believes they are now in possession of a man, name unknown, a large size man, riding a sorrel mare with a light mane and tail, and young colt running after, when last seen, who stayed last night at Edmund Russel’s, in Persifer township, this county,” is wholly insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the justice to issue a warrant for the arrest of the party described, as it fails to show that such person was guilty of any crime, and that affiant had just and reasonable grounds to suspect, or did, in fact, suspect he was guilty, and the warrant issued thereon is void.</p> <p>2. Escape—criminal liability of officer. A constable will not be liable to a criminal prosecution for voluntarily allowing a prisoner to escape, for whose arrest he holds a warrant, fair on its face, for a criminal offense, if the affidavit on which the same was issued fails to give the court issuing it jurisdiction; nor will the prisoner be liable for resisting arrest in such a case. °</p> <p>3. Process — when fair on its face is a protection to officer, and nothing more. The rule that a ministerial officer is protected in the execution of process issued by a court or officer having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the process, if it be regular on its face, and does not disclose a want of j urisdiction, is a rule of protection merely, and beyond that confers no right. If the court issuing the same was not authorized to do so, for want of a proper complaint, the officer to whose hands it comes, when sued for neglect of duty or prosecuted criminally, may show in defense such want of jurisdiction.</p>