1787-11-13 (static/transcriptions/1787/11/306.jpg)

performing his part of the Work in the Reparation of the Highway, without any [ILL] first given the Party to answer the complaint (which ought to be.) The Plaintiff insisted, that the Clergy had an ancient Privilege to be exempt fro Charges of that nature; and they not being nam’d, were not bound by the Statute. But it was further held, that notwithstanding the want of Surmono, yet no Action lay against the Constable for executing the Warrant of the Justiec of the Peace, who had jurisdiction of the matter. For as the Lord Hale there said, that would be to make the Constable as knowing as the Justice. 2 Ro. Abr: 560. Seaborne and [ILL] case, which was cited at the Bar, a Ca’ Sa’ issued on a Judgement in an inferior Court to take the Principal, if he could be found, and if not, the Bai; the Officer return’d that he had taken the Bail, because he could not find the Principal; altho’ it was held no Custom could make such Process good, yet no Action lay in that case against the officer.

1565 But the Chief Question in this Case is, whether the Judge Question in this case is, whether the Judge and Officer are subject to an action, where the cause of action arose out of the Jurisdiction
of