## Facts

- A creditor, Patten, caused a debtor, Freeman, to be arrested on civil process executed by Sheriff Halsted.
- Patten later obtained a judgment against Freeman for £1,526 19s. 6d.
- Freeman escaped while in Halsted’s custody.
- Patten sued Halsted, alleging the escape was voluntary or negligent and seeking damages equal to the judgment debt.
- Halsted contended (i) the strict English rule should not apply because the sheriff did not control jail construction/repair in New Jersey, (ii) he had taken every possible precaution and the escape occurred through unforeseen circumstances, and (iii) special bail was not required.
- The trial court instructed the jury that, under common law, any escape not caused by act of God or public enemies is treated as a negligent escape by the sheriff.
- The jury found for Patten and awarded damages equal to the full judgment amount.
- Halsted moved for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey follows the common-law rule imposing sheriff liability for a prisoner’s escape unless caused by act of God or public enemies.
2. Whether a sheriff’s asserted due care, extraordinary vigilance, or unforeseen circumstances can defeat liability for an escape.
3. Whether differences in jail responsibility (and the absence of special bail) alter the sheriff’s liability for escape.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for a new trial.
- The verdict for Patten was upheld, leaving damages at £1,526 19s. 6d.
- The court applied the common-law rule treating non-excused escapes as negligent in law, making the sheriff answerable for the creditor’s loss.

## Legal Principles

- A sheriff with lawful custody of a civil prisoner is liable for the prisoner’s escape unless the escape is caused by act of God or public enemies.
- Liability for escape is not avoided by proof of due care, rigorous guarding, or other claimed absence of personal fault.
- The sheriff’s duty of safe custody arises from the office and custodial obligation, and is not displaced by arguments about who builds or maintains the jail.

## Conclusion

The court adopted and applied a strict rule of sheriff responsibility for escapes: once a civil prisoner in lawful custody escapes for reasons other than act of God or public enemies, the sheriff is liable to the creditor for the resulting loss, measured here by the full judgment debt.


Patten v. Halsted, 1 N.J.L. 277 (N.J. 1795)