Opinion of the Court. & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, sec. 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L. star page 15; 1 East P. C. c. 5, page 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 E. & B. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 B. & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox's Crim. Cas. 4; Rafferty v. The People, 69 Ill. 111; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer have no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra. We do not find any statute of the United States or of the State of South Dakota giving any right to these men to arrest an individual without a warrant on a charge of misdemeanor not committed in their presence. Marshals and their deputies have in each State, by virtue of section 788, Revised Statutes of the United States, the same powers in executing the laws of the United States as sheriffs and their deputies in such State may have by law in executing the laws thereof. This certainly does not give any power to an officer at the Pine Ridge Agency to arrest a person without warrant, even though charged with the commission of a misdemeanor. These policemen were not marshals nor deputies of marshals, and the statutes have no application to them. By section 1014 of the Revised Statutes, the officers of the United States named therein, and certain state officers, may, agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such State, order the arrest of an offender for any crime or offence committed against the United States. This section has no application. Referring to the laws of South Dakota, we find no authority for making such an arrest without warrant. The law upon the subject of arrests in that State is contained in the Compiled Laws of South Dakota, 1887, section 7139 and the following sections, and it will be seen that the common law is therein substantially enacted. The sections referred to are set out in the margin.1 1 SEC. 7139. An arrest may be either1. By a peace officer, under a warrant; Opinion of the Court. No rule or regulation for the government of Indians upon a reservation has been cited, nor have we found any, which prohibits the firing of a gun there, " for fun," nor do we find any law, rule or regulation which authorizes an arrest, without war 2. By a peace officer, without a warrant; or, 3. By a private person. SEC. 7141. If the offence charged is a felony, the arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made at night, unless upon the direction of the magistrate indorsed upon the warrant. SEC. 7144. The officer must inform the defendant that he acts under the authority of the warrant, and must also show the warrant if required. SEC. 7145. If, after notice of intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all necessary means to effect the arrest. SEC. 7148. A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person1. For a public offence committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has in fact been committed and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. 4. On a charge made upon reasonable cause of the commission of a felony by the party arrested. SEC. 7150. He may also at night, without a warrant, arrest any person whom he has reasonable cause for believing to have committed a felony, and is justified in making the arrest, though it afterward appear that the felony had not been committed. SEC. 7151. When arresting a person without a warrant, the officer must inform him of his authority and the cause of the arrest, except when he is in the actual commission of a public offence, or is pursued immediately after an escape. SEC. 7153. When a public offence is committed in the presence of a magistrate, he may, by a verbal or written order, command any person to arrest the offender, and may thereupon proceed as if the offender had been brought before him on a warrant of arrest. SEC. 7154. A private person may arrest another— 1. For a public offence committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. SEC. 7155. He must, before making the arrest, inform the person to be arrested of the cause thereof, and require him to submit, except when he is in the actual commission of the offence, or when he is arrested on pursuit immediately after its commission. Opinion of the Court. rant, of an Indian not charged even with the commission of a misdemeanor, nor does it anywhere appear that Gleason had authority to issue a warrant for an alleged violation of the rules or regulations. It is plain from this review of the subject that the charge of the court below, that the policemen had the right to arrest this plaintiff in error, without warrant, and that, in order to accomplish such arrest, they had the right to show and use their pistols so far as was necessary for that purpose, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist such arrest, was erroneous. That it was a material error, it seems to us, is equally plain. It placed the transaction in a false light before the jury, and denied to the plaintiff in error those rights which he clearly had. The occasion of the trouble originated in Gleason's orders to arrest him, and in the announced intention on the part of the policemen, which they endeavored to accomplish, to arrest the plaintiff in error that night and take him to the agency, and all that followed that announcement ought to be viewed in the light of such proclaimed intention. And yet the charge presented the plaintiff in error to the jury as one having no right to make any resistance to an arrest by these officers, although he had been guilty of no offence, and it gave the jury to understand that the officers, in making the attempt, had the right to use all necessary force to overcome any and all opposition that might be made to the arrest, even to the extent of killing the individual whom they desired to take into their custody. Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first Statement of the Case. case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offence had been committed. The plaintiff in error was undoubtedly prejudiced by this error in the charge, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be Reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to grant a new trial. APACHE COUNTY v. BARTH. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 181. Submitted March 13, 1900. - Decided April 30, 1900. In an action at common law to recover from a municipal organization upon a warranty issued by it, when the defendant denies the execution of it, and sets up that it is a forgery, the plaintiff, in order to be entitled to put the instrument in evidence, and thereby make a prima facie case, would be compelled to prove its execution. The Revised Statutes of Arizona of 1887, provide: "735. (Sec. 87.) Any answer setting up any of the following matters, unless the truth of the pleadings appear of record, shall be verified by affidavit8. A denial of the execution by himself or by his authority of any instrument in writing upon which any pleading is founded, in whole or in part, and charged to have been executed by him or by his authority, and not alleged to be lost or destroyed. Where such instrument in writing is charged to have been executed by a person then deceased, the affidavit will be sufficient if it state that the affiant has reason to believe and does believe, that such instrument was not executed by the decedent or by his authority." Held, That when the defendant did not verify his answer in a case provided for therein, the note or warrant or other paper sued on was admitted as genuine, but when an answer denying that fact was verified, the plaintiff must prove it as he would have to do at common law in a case where the genuineness of the paper was put at issue by the pleadings. IN September, 1891, Jacob Barth commenced an action in one of the district courts of the Territory of Arizona against the board of supervisors of Apache County, in that Territory, to recover upon certain warrants which he alleged had been issued Statement of the Case. by that county during the year 1884, and of which he claimed to be the owner. Barth soon thereafter died, leaving a will, which was proved in February, 1892, and by order of the court in March, 1896, the action was revived in the name of Julia Barth, the appellee, who was the executrix named in the will. She filed in March, 1896, by leave of court, an amended complaint containing forty counts upon as many different warrants, which she alleged had been issued by the board of supervisors of the county, on account of debts due from the county, and of which warrants she was the owner, and that the county owed her thereon an amount exceeding seven thousand dollars, for which sum she duly demanded judgment with interest. A copy of each warrant was annexed to the complaint and formed part thereof. The defendant filed an unverified amended answer to this amended complaint, (which answer was subsequently verified,) and among other things denied that any of the warrants sued on had ever been issued or been directed to be issued by the board of supervisors of the county or by the authority of that board, but on the contrary defendant alleged that the pretended warrants sued on were, and each of them was, falsely made and forged, and that they were, and each of them was, a forgery, and that they were so falsely made and forged with a fraudulent intent to defraud the county of Apache. The defendant prayed judgment that plaintiff take nothing by her action, and for costs and for general relief. Other defences were set up, among which was the statute of limitations. The case came on for trial before the court, a jury trial having been waived, and the court having decided it, signed a statement of the facts found by it, in which it was stated that evidence had been introduced upon the trial, both oral and documentary, and upon the admission of the plaintiff the court found that the figures on eleven of the warrants (duly described and identified) had been altered and changed after they had been issued, and that such alterations and changes vitiated and rendered null and void those warrants as against the defendant, and that they were not valid claims against the county. The |