Martin v. . Boyd

Per Curiam. The trial court instructed the jury that under the facts in the instant case, the defendants did not have the right to shoot down plaintiff’s tire in order to stop him. Exception. Defendants say that had they been armed with process, this right would have existed, ergo the mere fact that they were not armed with *663 process would not make their conduct unlawful. The conclusion is a non sequitur. Holloway v. Moser, 193 N. C., 185, 136 S. E., 375. The defendants were outside the territory in which they are authorized to arrest without warrant. S. v. Sigman, 106 N. C., 728, 11 S. E., 520. No error.