
    Whitney vers. Haven.
    Where a Warrant from a Justice is pleaded in Justification of an Arrest, an attested copy of the same is admissible, notwithstanding Evidence is offered tending to invalidate its correctness. Cushing, J. diffentiente. Evidence is admissible to show a Difference between the Warrant on which the Arrest was made, and that set forth in the Justification.
    It is not essential that the Justice should aver himself to be such in the Body of the Warrant.
    
      TRESPASS. To the Force and Arms, not guilty. Justification for the Residue under a Warrant from Justice Jones, directed to an Officer, who took the Defendant for Aid, and, as such, arrested the Plaintiff. And, to support his Justification, Defendant produced an attested Copy from the said Justice’s Records. Plaintiff objected to its being received, for he had Evidence to shew that the Warrant on which he was arrested had no Seal — whereas this Copy came with a Loco Sigilli
      
    
    1772.
    Trowbridge, Justice.
    
    If there be Anything in the Objection, it is to invalidate the Copies.
    
      
       The Plaintiff also objected, that the Justice had not averred himfelf a Juftice in his Warrant, but the Objeflion had no great Weight with the Court. The Warrant in the Justification was introduced thus, viz : “ the Tenor of which said Warrant is as follows,” — the Warrant set out verbatim.
      
      N. B. The Foreman on the other Jury, withdrawn to agree on ye Verdict, was sent for to testify in this Cause.
    
   But

the Court

accepted them, contrary to the Opinion of Cushing, Justice.

Afterwards, the Plaintiff was admitted to give Evidence that the pretended Warrant whereby he was arrested was different from that set forth in the Defendant’s Justification. The Proof was not sufficient.

Judgment for Defendant.  