Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1855-03-29
JadFe DarIIey,s DecI,Ion.

The Wayne county Democrat In 40 editorial
under the head Of Important Decisions, pub
lishsd that Judge BARLEY decided tha, the eoun.
iy Sheriff is not an officer Oflbs Probate Court,
and that be cannot imPrisOn man by order Of
said Court The case in point was, the State
Of Ohio vs, Joseph slibbs, who was immediate.
ly released from custody.
The o. s. Journal copied the article from the
Democrat and commented upon it, in which it
clearly showed the faIlacy Of such decision
Deeming the matter might be Of Importance,
we gave both articles place on the first page
Of this weeks paper. But, since, we learn that
Judge Barley made no such decision that the
Democrat misOPprehended the Decision of the
Judge.
The Cleveland Leader says 1--WE now
lean from reliable source that Judge BARLEY
made no such decision. Stibbs was released,
simply. upon the ground Of the informality .oI
the order, or rather in the absence Of any order
Of the Court. An instrument claiming to be a
copy Of the order Of the Court, without sigma.
ture or seal was all that the Sheriff presented as
bis authority to hold Stibbs, which Judge Bart.
ley decided was not an order of the Probate
Court, and Stbbs was accordingly released
No other point was decided or referred 10 by
the Judge in bis judicial capacity"
The o. s. Journal Of the Gath inst, in cor.
,tnS this error, says
,,Nrehended, the Wayne County
n.naS",, AS we r. ..,. Inexperienced the decis,
ion of Judge BARLEY soSy. T. the powers of the
Probate Court in enforcing the .iqu.. were
deed the points said to have been decided
SO manifestly erroneous that we should prC1oa-
bly, have passed them by unnoticed, if the arti-
Gle from the Democrat had not been copied in
to the Statesman with an apparent Endorsement
Medary in his speech against the liquor law, at
the City Hall meeting, on Saturday evening.
also referred to this decision, and based some Of
his arguments against the law upon it.
We now learn that the Democrat was Who'll
ly mistaken. The points decided by Judge
BARLEY were the following:
ASbt lhdb WV JuuiOiai pO"SI VI tu0
Courts is strictly confined and limited by stat
ute; and that in the exercise of criminal iuris-
diction, he must strictly follow his statutory
authority
Cd. That all process and orders from the
Probate Court to an officer, in the execution Of
his judgment and sentence, must be in writing,
and under the seal of the Court.
Sd, That the Probate Court cannot imprison
a man on mere verbal order; and that a war.
rant OF commitment after sentence for a crimi-
mai offence, issued by the Probate Court, must
be in writing, and under the seal Of the Court,
and plainly and clearly set out the criminal
charge, as required by the act.
4th. That the proceedings of the Probate Court
for violations of the law to restrain abuses in
the traffic in intoxicating liquors must show,
upon their face, that the criminal charge was
substantially, and legally made. and that the
judicial action of the Court was, in substance,
at least in conformity with the essential require
ments of the law,
We find no fault with the decision. as the
Judge reports it himself, and We hasten to cor
rect the errors of the Locofoco press, by giving
the case as it is. Probate Judges, who have
been alarmed or disturbed by the misstatement
will find in the above the correction of the
error"