
    State vs. John Vidalla et al.
    
    PROVIDENCE
    MAY 15, 1902.
    PRESENT: Stiness, 0. J,, Tillinghast and Rogers, JJ.
    (1) Indictments. False Arrest. Obstructing Officer.
    
    It is no defence to an indictment, charging the defendant with obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty, that the defendant was illegally taken into custody without a warrant upon the charge against him.
    Indictment charging the defendants with obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty. Heard on petition of defendants for new trial, and petition denied.
    
      Charles F. Stearns, Attorney-General, for State.
    
      Hugh J. Carroll, for defendants.
   Per Curiam.

The defendants are indicted for obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty.

The ground relied on by the defendants for a new trial is that after taking away Wysga, in whose arrest it is charged that the obstruction took place, the officers came back and then, without a warrant, arrested the defendants. Admitting this to be so, it is no defence to this indictment. If the defendants obstructed an officer in the first arrest, it is no answer to this indictment to say that they were illegally taken into custody upon the charge against them.

In all the points relating to the charge in the indictment there is sufficient testimony, if believed, to support the verdict.

The petition for a new trial must be denied.  