
    MEEDS vs. CARVER.
    The'plea of not guilty to an action of trespass on the person, merely denies that he committed any trespass at all.
    If, in such an action, the defendant hath matter of justiScation, he cannot give it in evidence undor the general issue, but must plead it specially.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank County, at the Spring Term 1847, his Honor Judge Caldwell, presiding.
    The action is trespass and false imprisonment, and the plea not guilty. On the trial the defendant showed, that he was Sheriff of Pasquotank, and he offered in evidence a precept from a Justice of the Peace, which is set forth in the exception, and was directed to any lawful officer, and delivered to one of his deputies, who arrested the plaintiff thereon, and committed him to jail. The defendant insisted that the precept was a capias ad satisfacien-dum, and authorised the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff; whereas the plaintiff contended that it was void, and did not justify the officer. His Honor was of opinion that the process, though not strictly formal, was valid and justifled the defendant; and therefore directed the jury to find for him. There was accordingly a verdict for the defendant, and from the judgment the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Badger, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. Moore, for the defendant.
   Ruffin, C. J.

We are obliged to reverse the judgment, without reference to the question, whether the process be valid as a ca. sa. so as to authorise the arrest; because, upon the pleadings in this case, it was not competent to the defendant, to set up that defence. In actions for trespass on the person, not guilty, says Lord Coke, is a a good issue, if the defendant committed no trespass at all; but, by the common law, if he hath cause of justification or excuse, then can he not plead, not guilty, for then upon the evidence it shall be found against him, and upon that issue he cannot justify it, but he must plead the special matter, and confess and justify the battery. Co. Lit. 283, and we have no Statute allowing an officer to give the special matter in evidence on the general issue. It is most probable his Honor’s attention was not called to the fact, that, not guilty, was the only plea, as both parties seem to have put the case upon the sufficiency of the process, as a ca. sa.; but as the error is apparent in the record, and is insisted on here, this Court must necessarily reverse the judgment and order a venire de novo„

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and venire de nova ordered.  