Upon the question whether unnecessary force was used in arresting the plaintiff, evidence that the defendant knew him to be a violent and dangerous person is competent. Whether evidence of the defendant's violence in making a previous arrest is admissible, is a question determinable at the trial term. The defendant having testified that he was a constable, and having produced writ with his return thereon, a request for an instruction that there was no evidence he was a constable was rightly refused.
CARPENTER, J.
Evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was known by the defendant to be a violent and dangerous person was competent. In arresting and detaining such a person, forcible measures might be proper and reasonable which in the case of a person of a different character would be unwarranted.
Whether the evidence offered of the defendant's character for violence and of his conduct in making a previous arrest had any legitimate bearing on the issue submitted to the jury, was a question of remoteness determinable at the trial term. Its exclusion was not error. Cook v. New Durham, 64 N.H. 419; Hilliard v. Beattie, 59 N.H. 462, 465.
The instruction requested was properly refused. Jewell v. Gilbert, 64 N.H. 13.
Exceptions overruled.
PARSONS, J., did not sit: the others concurred.