
    Erastus C. Underwood vs. Josiah W. Brown.
    In an action for causing the plaintiff to be arrested upon a writ in favor of the defendant, on which there was no affidavit sufficient to authorize an arrest, evidence is inadmissible that the claim for which the writ was issued was a promissory note of the plaintiff, purchased by the defendant from a third person.
    Tort for assault and battery and false imprisonment. At the trial in the superior court, before Seudder, J., the same facts appeared as in the case of Underwood v. Robinson, ante, 296. The defendant in this case was the person in whose favor the writ, on which the plaintiff was arrested, was issued. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that a part of the claim on which the defendant had caused the writ to be issued against him was a negotiable promissory note, purchased of and indorsed by Asa F. Hall. The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence, on the ground that the pleadings did not charge the defendant with maliciously procuring the arrest of the plaintiff ; but the judge admitted it. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages in the sum of $411, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. Gr. Abbott, for the defendant.
    
      J. W. Hammond, for the plaintiff.
   Gray, J.

The purchase of a negotiable promissory note is a perfectly lawful act; and has, of itself, no tendency to prove a wrongful motive in procuring an unlawful arrest in an action afterwards brought thereon. The evidence objected to did not tend to show the motive, intent or circumstances attending the trespass complained of; and as it was incompetent, and calculated to prejudice the defendant with the jury, we cannot say that it was immaterial. Exceptions sustained.  