State v. . Hedrick

*626 Merrimon, J., (after stating the facts). It seems that' the facts were not questioned, and - accepting them as true, the defendant was properly convicted. He on purpose, tripped the prosecuting witness, causing him to fall violentl) to the ground, without giving him any caution or notice to desist from the pursuit of the fleeing party. If it be granted that he had the right to prevent the re-arrest, as contended by his counsel in the argument — and this is not certain under the circumstances — he had no right to do so in such a violent way as that he adopted. If his purpose was lawful and sincere, he should haA^e first notified the pursuing party to desist, and then at once, if need be, haA^e laid hold of him firmly, but gently, and so as to sIioav a peaceful and not a hostile purpose. He had no right to do Avhat might be a laAvful act in an unlawful and Ancient manner. By so doing he made himself a criminal offender. It is clear that he intended to preArent the re-arrest, ¡perhaps not warranted, by such Anolence as in law made him guilty of an assault. There is no error. No,qrror. Affirmed.