
    Louis Guenther vs. Jonathan Day & others.
    A search warrant, issued under St. 1855, c. 215, § 25, which does not recite the names of the complainants, is void.
    Action of tort against a constable of Worcester and two other officers assisting him, for taking and carrying away intoxicating liquors of the plaintiff under a search warrant issued by the police court of the city of Worcester, for the seizure of liquors in a dwelling-house, substantially in the form given in St. 1855, c. 397, § 1, except that the names of the complainants were omitted in the recital at the commencement of the complaint, and only that one named in the body of the complaint, who made the oath required by St. 1855, c. 215, § 25, in order to authorize the search of a dwelling-house. And by reason of such omission, the plaintiff sought to charge the defendants as trespassers.
    The St. of 1855, c. 215, § 25, requires two complainants to every such complaint; and provides that “ the offence, both in the complaint and warrant, shall be fully, plainly and substantially described, and the complainants shall be summoned to appear as witnesses at the time and place which shall be assigned for the hearing and trial upon said complaint.”
    
      II. Chapin, for the plaintiff.
    P. E. Aldrich, for the defendants.
   Shaw, C. J.

The statutes require the complaint to be fully set xorth in the warrant. Sts. 1855, c. 215, § 25 ; c. 397, § 1. It is not so set forth in this warrant; the complainants are nowhere named, and of course the order in the warrant to summon “ the complainants” not named, to testify, is inoperative and void; and therefore the warrant is erroneous, and affords no justification to the defendants. Judgment for the plaintiff  