Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/515

 Rep. 292, affirmed.—Gilbert v. Paes 81 N. Y. Supp. 960, 191 App. Div. 313.

“In an action for an arrest and false imprisonment, where defendant justifies under a warrant, the warrant, prima facie, proves itself, and it is for plaintiff to show that it was illegally issued. In an action against a deputy marshal for false imprisonment on proof that he was an officer de facto, the court in absence of proof to the contrary, will presume that he was.also an officer de jure. Prell v. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426, 12 Am. Rep. 423. :

“An action for false imprisonment will not hie where plaintiff has not been arrested; and, though his manual seizure is not necessary to an arrest, there must be some sort of personal coercion.” Hill v. Taylor, 50 Mich. 549; 15 N. W. 899.

“There is no legal wrong unless the detention was involuntary.” 19 Cyc. Law. & Proc. p. 323.

An advocate has neither duty nor right to appeal to prejudices, just or unjust, against his adversary, dehors the very case he has to try. The very fullest freedom of speech within the duty of his profession should be accorded to counsel; but it is license not freedom, of speech, to travel out of the record, basing his argument on facts not appearing, and appealing to prejudices irrelevant to the case and outside of the proof.” Thomp. Trials, § 963. Hall v. Wolff, supra; People v. Carr, 64 Mich. 702; 31 N. W. Rep. 590; Turner. v. State, 4 Lea, 206; Festner v. Railroad Co. 17 Neb. 280; 22 N. W. 557; Paper Co. v. Banks, 15 Neb. 20; 16 N. W. Rep. 833; Ferguson v. State, 49 Ind. 33; Koelges v. Insurance Co., 47 N. Y. 638; Mitchum v. State 11 Ga. 615 ;Rolfe v. Rumford, 66 Me. 564; Bullard v. Railroad Co. 64 N. H. 27; 5 Atl. 838; Bulliner v. People, 95 lll. 396; Brown v. State, 60 Ga. 210; Northington v. State, 14 Lea. 424; Flint v. Com. 81 Ky. 186; Sullivan v. State, 66 Ala. 48; Tucker v. Hennicker, 41 N. H. 317; Gallinger v. Traffic Co. 67 Wis. 529; 30 N. W. 790; Henry v. Railroad Co. 66 Iowa 52; 23 N. W. 260; Palmer v. Railroad Co. (Idaho) 13 Pac. 425; Lindsay v. Pettigrew (S. D.) 52 N. W. 874.

“Where a case is submitted for a special verdict, general instructions are not proper. The jury should only be given instructions which are appropriate to the question which they are to answer, and it is error to inform them as to the effect their answers will have upon the ultimate rights of the parties, or to authorize them.to answer in the form of a legal conclusion.” Morrison v. Lee, 13 N. D. 591.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in passing upon this question under