the words “necessity and charity” in our statute mean not physical necessity, but moral fitness and propriety, and that it was incumbent on Mrs. Foster to show that there was some necessity of this kind operating on her when she left New York—­she knowing that her regular route would require travelling on Sunday; but that a Constable when he arrests, must carry the prisoner, under the law, before a Justice, and then he has done his duty; and as the defendant had not done it in this case, he was liable.  The Judge further expressed a decided opinion that the law was constitutional, and that before he could say a law was otherwise which had been acquiesced in so long, he should require the strongest reasons to be shown.  As to what constituted an arrest, the Judge remarked that force was not required, or a touching, but it must be a detention professed to be done by authority and an exercise of authority; which, he observed, was clearly proved in the present case.  The damages should give at least the actual injury and something as smart money, if there was any bad motive.  This the Judge said did not appear, but the officer seemed to be impressed with a desire to discharge his duty.

    The jury returned a verdict of 125 dollars damages and costs for
    the plaintiffs.—­New-Haven Reg.

[This was a case tried under the statute of Connecticut against the right of unnecessary travelling on the Sabbath.  The result appears to be very remarkable.  In the first place, we consider the Law itself to be clearly unconstitutional, and we have never had the slightest doubt that if the question ever goes to Washington, the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional, and reverse the decision of the Connecticut Court.—­Boston Centinel.]

    Salem Observer, May 4, 1833.

-------------------------

The ridiculous practice here recorded does not appear to have gained a foothold in America.  It would have been, to say the least, less harmful in its effects than the hanging of witches or the whipping of Quakers.

PROSECUTIONS AGAINST ANIMALS.  The second number of the American Jurist, just published, contains a curious article relating to the prosecutions formerly instituted against animals, and for whom counsel was sometimes assigned by the Court, in the same manner as is now done in cases of capital felony.  The first case mentioned is a prosecution of some rats in the Bishopric of Autun, in France.  They had become so mischievous that a bill in due form was filed against the rats, and a summons issued for their appearance before the Court.  The Judge, unwilling to take advantage of their default, appointed an advocate to plead for them, and he managed their cause so adroitly that by means of this prosecution he obtained an elevation to the highest honor of his profession.  In another case counsel was appointed to defend some caterpillars who had drawn upon themselves the vengeance of the law; but the ingenious arguments of their advocate availed nothing, and the caterpillars fell under the censure of a spiritual Court, who ordered adjuration, prayers, and sprinkling of holy water.

    Salem Observer, May 9, 1829.