1946年11月11日傍晚，在員林的臺中縣警察局內，因該局警員抗拒法院發票拘提，開槍射擊法警、看守，時稱「員林事件」。此一事件非但是觀察戰後初期臺灣社會法治狀況的指標案件，亦是民國時代中國與日治時期臺灣兩股法律文化衝突的明顯例示。本文利用檔案、報刊、日記等材料，仔細重建事件輪廓，出警察機關敢於違抗法院命令，背後的脈絡是來自西方的現代司法權概念，在民國時代的中國只是作為表面化存在，法院在國家處於弱勢、地位低落所致。員林事件發生前，軍警違法亂紀時有所聞，但此事件仍帶給臺灣社會極大震撼，原因在於殖民地法院時代樹立的權威，戰後竟無力自保，行政機關不願守法，槍擊並濫拘司法機關執法人員，事後拒絕法院推事與檢察官釋放命令，無視法律存在。行政機關的種種行徑與發言，讓無力的本省菁英見微知著，連忙發起「護法」運動，透過集會講演與請願，要求當局正視問題的嚴重性。當他們疾呼依法統治（rule by law）的同時，對自己的人身安全與臺灣的法治前途，感到恐懼與悲觀。

On the evening of November 11^th 1946, a court police and a prison guard with arrest warrant were shot by a policeman in the Police Department of Yuanlin in Taichung County. Taichung County Police Department showed an astonishing lack of concern for court orders. It was the so-called the Yuanlin Incident. This single incident was not only an index to observe the social order of Taiwan after the World War II, but also a clear example to show the differences between two legal cultures-Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule and Republican China.With the help of related archives, newspapers and magazines, and diaries, this paper delineates and discusses the whole incident, and tries to explicate the causes behind the incident. How could the Police Department defy the injunctions of the court? Presumably it was the superficial application of the modem law of jurisdiction to Republican China that caused the incident. The court worked only on the surface in Republican China. The Taiwanese ruled by Japanese could not understand why judiciary under the Kuomintang Rule was rather weak and unrespected. Before the Incident, it was quite common to see soldiers or policemen violate laws and disciplines. But, this incident was a great shock to the society. The authority gained by the court during the Japanese colonial period was suddenly put in jeopardy. Furthermore, it was too daring for any administrative organization to refuse to take orders from the judge and the prosecutor. Such defiance of the law simply could not be tolerated. The behaviors and the speech of the administrative authorities led the local intellectuals and elites to initiate a series of ”law-protecting” actions. By means of public lectures and petitions, they requested that the government should face the problem immediately and should also be ruled by law so that the life of people in general could be protected and Taiwan's judicial independence could be maintained.