
    GRAY vs. AYRES.
    A person is not priviledged from arrest, merely because he is a suitor in court; but it must appear that he was actually attending, or going to, or returning from, court.
    
      A capias ad respondendum, was sued out and served upon the defendant, in term time.
    Redick,
    moved to discharge the defendant on common bail, “ because he is a suitor in court,” and cited 14 vol. stat. laws, 234.
    Wright, contra,
    proved by the officer who served the writ, that it was served upon the defendant at his own house, while he was attending to his ordinary business, and he insisted that the defendant was not then priviledged from arrest.
   President.

The law privileges from arrest “all suitors, while attending court, and while going to and returning from court.” The defendant was a suitor, but he was neither attending court or going to or returning from court; a suitor is not privileged from arrest “during the sitting of the court,” as is the case with others mentioned in the same section; there is no danger that the business of the court will be interrupted by the arrest of suitors who, confiding their suits to attorneys, find it unnecessary to attend upon them personally, but remain at home, nor does the law extend to such. The defendant, therefore, can take nothing by his motion.  