
    Smith vs. The State.
    No actual force is necessary to constitute a false imprisonment. If a man is restrained of his personal liberty by fear of a personal difficulty, that amounts to a false imprisonment;
    Rodgers, with horse and carryall was carried over the Chucky river by Smith in his ferry boat. Smith was the keeper of a public ferry. When over Smith demanded ferriage, which Rodgers said was airead}7 paid: on this a dispute occurred, and Smith told him he should not go on till he paid the ferriage. Some other conversation ensued, when Rodgers paid the fer-riage demanded. Rodgerswas detained ten or fifteen minutes.
    An indictment was found against Smith for an assault and false imprisonment.
    Rodgers stated on the trial before R. M. Anderson, presiding Judge, anda jury of Cocke county, that Smith had not touched his bridle ot his horse; that he made no effort to strike or touch his person or his horse, and that he made no threats of personal violence, but that he was afraid of a difficulty with Smith. Smith told Rodgers after he had paid the charge, that if he had not paid it he had determined to' have put his carryall and horse back into the boat, and to have carried them back.
    A verdict and judgment were rendered for the State, and defendant appealed.
    Arnold, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Attorney General, for the Stale.
   GheeN, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for an assault and false imprisonment of Mark M. Rodgers. The court charged the jury, “That to make out the offence as charged, no actual force was necessary, but that a man might be assaulted by being beset by another; and if the opposition to the prosecutor’s going-forward was such as a prudent man would not risk, then the defendant would, in contemplation'of law, be guilty of false imprisonment.”

This charge is correct in all its parts, and the facts were fairly left to the jury. A verdict of guilty has been pronounced, and we do not feel authorized to disturb it. The prosecutor and defendant disputed about the ferriage defendant claimed. Smith insisted upon his demand, and said he did not choose to sue every man that crossed at his ferry. Although he did not lake hold of thS prosecutor, or offer violence to his person, yet his manner may have operated as a moral force to detain the prosecutor. ■

And this appears the more probable, as after the affair was settled, the prosecutor enquired, what defendant would have done*|if he had not paid the ferriage demanded, to which the defendant replied, “he would have put his carryall and horse back into the. boat and taken them across the river again.” As this determination existed in his mind, it doubtless was exhibited in the manner of the defendant, and thus operated upon the fears of the prosecutor.

Affirm the judgment.  