
    ROGERS against BULLOCK.
    Witness, unless under subpoena, may be arrested when attending court, 
    
    A motion was made on the part of the defendant to be discharged from arrest, on the ground that he was [*] attending the trial of a cause in a county court as a witness. It appeared, however, that he had not [891] been subpoenaed. On the part of the defendant, it was argued, that if he was bona fide attending as a witness, it was immaterial whether he was subpoenaed or not; for which they cited 1 Dallas 439 ; 3 Dallas 183; 6 Bac. 376. On the part of the plaintiff, the act of Assembly, Pat. 1ft 1, was relied on.
    
      
       S P. 6* Mass. 245. Salk. 544■ % John, 294
      
    
   By the Court.

Whatever may be the practiee laid down in the books, our statute gives the rule. A witness, to be entitled to protection from arrest, must be necessarily attending court or going to or from it, under a subpoena “previously and duly executed.”

It was also attempted to be made out, that although the defendant was not a party in the suit, yet that he was so connected with it, and had such a relation to it, as rendered his attendance necessary, and on that ground was entitled to privilege. This was not satisfactorily made out; and besides

The court said that it was repugnant to the idea held out of his being attending as a witness.

Rule refused.

Criticised in Dungan v. Miller, 8 Vr. 183.

Cited in Jones v. Knauss, 4 Stew. 213.  