
    *Deborah Blight against David Meeker and John I. Meeker.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    It is improper to issue a warrant to arrest a female for debt, the process should be by summons.
    This is a certiorari to the Essex Common Pleas, to bring up a judgment given by the Common Pleas upon an appeal from the court for the trial of small causes. From the justice’s transcript and papers sent up, it appeared, that one of the plaintiffs went before the justice and made oath of their debt, and that they would be in danger of losing their debt if process against the defendant should be by summons ; ‘that the justice thereupon issued a warrant against, the defendant, for one hundred dollars; that the constable, on the same day, arrested the defendant, and took a bond, with .security, for her appearance before the justice, to answer, &c. The defendant appeared before the justice, and pleaded, that she was a female, and. not liable to be arrested by warrant; which plea the justice overruled, and, after hearing’ the proof in support of the plaintiffs’ account, gave judgment in their favor for ninety-nine dollars and ninety-two-cents, debt, and seventy-eight cents, costs.
    The defendant appealed, and upon the trial of the appeal before the Common Pleas, the appellant (who is the plaintiff’ in certiorari) moved to non-suit the appellees, upon the same ground taken before the justice, to wit, that the appellant, being a female, was not liable to be arrested by warrant; which motion the court overruled, and affirmed the judgment of the justice, with costs, &c.
    
      Chetwood moved to reverse the judgment of the Common Pleas,
    upon the ground, that the original process issued by the justic; against the defendant was a warrant. This, he said, could not be done, for our statute (Rev. Laws 652, seo. 6)> enacted, that “it should not be lawful to confine the person of any female for debt,” and if the plaintiff could be taken; upon a warrant, this law would be defeated.
    
      Scudder, contra,
    contended, that the confinement for debt, mentioned in the act, meant only such a confinement as would enable the person confined to apply for the benefit of the insolvent *law, and did not extend to the arrest-of a woman upon a warrant.
   Per Curiam.

Both the courts did wrong; an arrest is-an imprisonment, and comes within the meaning of the act.The issuing of a warrant against a woman was therefore-improper.

Let the judgment be reversed.-  