50 FEDEEA.L EEPOBTER. �While the marshal was removing his prisoner he was sur- roundecl by a crowd. A cane which he carried was seized hold of, and the escape of the prisoner was effected. The marshal, when deprived of his cane, drew from his pocket a pistol. The defendants, who were members of the municipal police, at once arrested him and removed him to a police station, where he was detained some four hours. Upon these faots the jury found the defendants guilty. They now apply for a new trial. The principal proposition argued in support of this application is that the court erred in not submitting to the jury the question whether the act of the marshal in draw- ing a pistol was not a breach of the peace. �To this proposition one sufficient answer is that no request was made of the court to have such a question submitted to the jury. Another answer is that there was no- evidence suf- ficient to justify the jury in finding that the. act of the mar- shal in drawing his pistol was a breach of the peace. Still another answer is that, assuming the drawing of the pistol to have been a breach of the peace, nevertheless the arrest and removal of the marshal from the poUing place, under the eir- cumstances, was an offence against the laws of the United States. �The statute under which the defendants were indicted makes it an offence for any person, whether with or without authority, power, or process from any state or municipality, to obstruot or hinder a deputy marshal in the performance of any duty required of him ■ by law. In this instance an of- fence against the laws of the United States, created by sec- tion 5511 of the Eevised S'tatutes, had apparently been eom- mitted by Shafer in the presence of Faser, the marshal. It thereupon became the duty of the marshal, by virtue of section 2022, to arrest anfl take into custody the offender. Accord- ingly the marshal did arrest the offender, and, while engaged in maintaining custody of his prisoner, he was arrested by the defendants and removed from the pplling place. Bythe acts of the defendants, in arresting and removing the mar- shal, it was rendered impossible for him to maintain custody of his prisoner, or to regain that custody if the prisoner ;had ��� �
