
    Dickenson against Rogers and Richards.
    tiJeh0eft^1estc"I stitutim pt ihe dams, “tiiataii proceedings name of the itate*’6' &°c. apcóm-tofchLg^’tg of gd cord hav,ins jurisdiction
    ^ therefore, issuof bfhe Jpueace¡ °tra°eh|cting?s af th^peac” £ajLbnamehof ofsuci^magif strata,and r ¡s most usually in the name of * e ■,ustice'
    THIS was an action of assault and battery and false imprisonment, tried at the Warren circuit, in June, 1820, before Mr. Justice Platt. It was proved that the defendants, on the 9th of December, 1818, entered the plaintiff’s shop, in Caldwell, in Warren county, and arrested the plaintiff, locked him up in the gaol of that county for the night, and on the next day took him to Troy, before the Recorder of that city. The defendants justified under a warrant issued by the Recorder of Troti, in the usual printed form, under his seal, against the plaintiff, on a charge of having received goods of C. H. of Troy, feloniously stolen, commanding the sheriff or any constable of the county of Warren, to cause the plaintiff to be brought before the said Recorder, &c. The counsel for the plaintiff objected to the reading of this warrant in evidence, on the ground that it was not in the name of the people of the state of New-York, The judge permitted the warrant to be read in evidence, . , . , ’ saving the exception. 1 he defendants then read in evidence another warrant issued by the Recorder of Troy, commanding, &c. in the name of people of the state of New- York, to search the shop of the plaintiff in C, for certain stolen goods specified in the warrant, and if they were found, or any part of them, to bring the body of the plaintiff before the said Recorder, 8zc. The jury, under the direction of the judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff, for six cents damages, subject to the opinion of the Court on a case containing the facts above stated.
    
      Z. R. Shepherd for the plaintiff.
    He cited, 2 Comyn’s Dig. Brief A. 2 Inst. 40. Constitution of the State, act. 31.
    
      Weston, contra.
    
    He cited, 1 Bl. Com. 137. 2 Burr. 1187. 4 Bl, Com. 290. 2 Bl. Rep, 836. 5 Johns. Rep. 166.
   Spencer, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. If tjje warrant issued by the Recorder of Troy was a legal process,'then, it is conceded, the defendant was entitled *° a verd>ct. The objection is, that the warrant was not in the name of the people of the state of New- York /-and it was urged, on the argument, that the constitution was imperative in this particular, and that, therefore, the warrant was void. The constitution ordains, “ that all writs and other proceedings shall run in the name of the People of the state of New-York, and be tested in the name of the Chancellor or chief Judge of the Court from whence they issue.” This provision obviously extends only to the Court of Chancery, and Courts of Record having common law jurisdiction. The provision was meant to be co-éxtensive with the usage and practice of similar courts in England. The Recorder of Troy, having the powers of a judge or the Supreme Court in vacation, acted as a justice of the peáce in issuing.this warrant. It was a ministerial act, not one of a judicial character. It was issued by a magistrate as conservator of the peace, and not as the act of a court. It is perfectly well settled in England, that a warrant may be either in the king’s name, or in the name of the justice himself; and the latter is the most usual. (Hawk. b. 2. ch. 13. s. 24. 2 Hale, 113. 1 Chitty's C. L. 32.)

The words of the constitution do not require the construction contended for; and it cannot be believed that, with respect to justices’ warrants, it was meant to innovate upon the law of the land.

Judgment for the defendants.  