e4 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �evidence ander leave of court, (Bac, Abr. "Privilege," B 2.) The privilege arises out of the authority and dignity of the court where the cause is pending, and protection against any violation of the privilege is to be enforeed by that court, and will be respected by others. Hurst's Case, 4 Dali. 387. A writ of protection issued out of that court is proper, but is not necessary, except for convenient and authentic notice to those about to do what would be a violation of the priv- ilege. It neither establishes nor enlarges the privilege, but merely sets it forth, and commands due respect to it. Me- iVeirs Case, 6 Mass. 264; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 216. �In Hall's Case, 1 Tyler, ,274, a writ was actually issued. It commanded all civil officers, and other persons, to abstain from executing or serving any civil process upon the body. The court said that the object of the privilege was that the perron sbbuld not be drawn into a iforeign iurisdiction, and tliel^e'lje exposed to be entangled in litigation, far from his hoine.'which miist ever be attended with augmented expense, and, itiat the writ siispended all civil process against him. i^e service' made in that e'ase was by arrest, which was com- mon'at that time, but an exposure to service by summons woiila be equally an exposure to distant and vexations litiga- tion^ and within the' tuischiefs mentioned by the court. A pairiy wto cbuld not attend tb his suit without being liable to siici' service, woula be unAer personal restraint from which those engiaged in the administration of justice have a right to be free. Halsey v. Stewart, 1 South. 366. �ih Miles Y. McCullough, 1 Binn. 77, the defendant, while a|tending that court, was served with a summons at the suit of the plaintiff, and moved that the service be set aside upon the ground of privilege. The plaintiff contended that he was privileged from arrest alone. The court said that it had been repeatedly ruled that he was equally privileged from the serv- ice oi a summons, and set the service aside. This service, 80 near the time of commencement of proceedings, was prob- ably in the constructive presence of the authority acting under the order, which would of itself be a contempt. Blight v. Fisher, 1 Pet. C. C. 41. It was imposing upon the defendants ��� �
