The defendants are described as officers of the association, but are not charged with doing any act as such officer S They are charged with the doing of acts, which, if they were at the time individuals doing business under the "act to authorize the business of banking," would subject them both to the penalty of $1,000, and to punishment for the misdemeanor, but they are not averred to have been individuals doing business under that act when they did the things set forth in the indictmenT As an indictment then, under section 2 of the act of 1839, as amended in 1853, this indictment is fatally defective Section 2 of the act of 1853, apparently makes the acts touching the circulation of foreign bank notes by banks, bank- ing associations and individual bankers, forbidden by its sec- tion 1, unlawful " for any person within this State," if the foreign bank bill, note or other evidence of debt in the simili- tude of a bank bill or note, "shall have been received by such person at a greater rate of discount than is or shall be at the time fixed by law fqr the redemption of the bills of the banks of this State at their agencie S" Possibly this indictment might have been sustained under this section, had it charged, which it does not in either count, that the defendants had received the bank bills or notes at a greater rate of discount, & C Section 3 of the act of 1853, provides that " the penalties provided in section 4 of the act hereby amended, shall apply to any violation of this acT" From the best examination we have been able to give this subject, we doubt very much whether the misdemeanors declared by section 4 of the amended act are tolled But it is not necessary to pass upon this question, nor upon any of the minor objections to the indictmenT The first ground taken by the counsel for the defendants is fatal.

The indictment being for a misdemeanor, we think it right to direct the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendants, instead of quashing the indictment It is no ground, either for quashing an indictment or discharging the prisoner from arrest, that before the finding of the indictment, and after the issuing to the officer, by a police justice, of a warrant for his arrest, by an agreement between the officer and some person in Canada, the prisoner was forcibly brought from Canada to the line of this State, and there delivered to such offi- cer, in arrest, under the warranT A WARRANT was issued by the police justice of the city of Buffalo to arrest the prisoner upon a charge of grand larceny, and delivered to a deputy sheriff of Erie county for service The prisoner being in Canada, the deputy sheriff made an arrangement with some person or police officer in Canada to bring the prisoner to this side Such person took the prisoner by the arm, at or on the Suspension Bridge, on the Canadian side, and forced him across the bridge into this State, the deputy sheriff accompanying him, and, at this end of the bridge, the deputy arrested the prisoner under the warrant, and took him before the police justice, who, on proof of these facts, refused to discharge him, and, after examination, committed him to answer the charge He was indicted for the larceny at this term of the court, and, upon affidavits showing these facts, moved that the indictment be quashed, or he discharged from arresT CLINTON, JThe objection to the arrest has no application to the indictmenT For aught that appears in the papers, that could and would have been found whether the defendant was within the jurisdiction or noT There is no reason shown for quashing the indictmenT As to the arrest, it was undoubtedly the fruit of an agree- ment for a violation of the prisoner's right of personal liberty on Canadian soil.

For that he has, we presume, a remedy in the Canadian courts, and, perhaps, in our own Whether the dignity of Great Britain has been insulted by the act of its subject in hurrying the prisoner across the Suspension Bridge from a part of her Majesty's dominions, we are not called upon to inquire The question is an international one, and cannot arise unless her Majesty's government shall see fit to lay the matter before our governmenT If the Canadian law has been violated, one of the offenders, and perhaps the only offender, against that law, is within its reach No offence against the laws of this State, nor of the United States, was, so far as we can discover, perpetrated by the arresT We see no analogy between this case and cases of arrest in civil actions procured by the trick or fraud of the plaintiff.

Where the defendant is so induced by the plaintiff to come within the jurisdiction, the court may discharge him without bail.

Here is no wrong chargeable to the People On the other hand, the indictment is, on such a motion as this, conclu- sive evidence of the prisoner's guilt, and the court would be guilty of a gross injury to the People if it should discharge him untried Cattle, stolen in "Wyoming county, were driven across the line into Erie county, and through different towns of the latter county into the city of Buffalo : Held, that the Superior Court of Buffalo had jurisdiction for the trial of the offence THE prisoner was convicted, at the October criminal term, 1858, of grand larcenY He moved for a new trial, on a bill of exceptions, at the May general term, 1859 By the Court, CLINTON, JThe bill of exceptions shows that the prisoner stole cattle in "Wyoming county, drove them across the line into Erie county, and thence through divers towns of Erie county into this city, its capital.