The Daily empire. (Dayton, Ohio) 1865-1867, 1867-01-19
LAW REPORT.
COMMON PLEAs-JUDGE SMITH.

COMMON PLEAs-JUDGE SMITH.
January is, 1867.
The State of Ohio against David Thomas
and William Scully. two policemen. in
dicted for oppression I'm office. and assault
aud battery. This case occupied the at
tentiou of the Court yesterday and pars of
to-day. It seems that an execution fois
costs had been issued against Andrew Cor
rigan, and placed it in the hands of Scully.
and he and Thomas arrested Corrigan. al
though he (Corrigan) offered through VIM
tiers and Huber, who had money of his ia
their hands, to pay the same, which they
refused, as there was also another eXecu-
ton for cost in the hands of the Marshal
against the same party. They (the police
mem also refused to go with Corrigan to
the Marshal or the Mayor. but arrested him
and placed him in jail
The Court charged the Jury substantially
as follows:
Gentlemen Of the JB9,-The definition of
fthe otfsnse is williully and corruptly on
pressing in office. | 5hink under this
charge, so far rs the first count is concerned,
something more is required than merely
acting without authority or beyond alI-
thOrity, or an honest mistake; that some
improper. wicked and corrupt motive is one
OF the elements of the oifenSe. This wick
ed and corrupt motive may be deduced and
Inferred from the circumstances, from the
acts and conduct of the defendants: If
their authority was mere execution, and
the money was offered to them, II was their
duty TO receive IL, and if the money was
there ready. and they declined receiving it.
they had no legal right or authority. on
refusing TO receive it, to take him OFF to
jail. Nor could they legally hold him, be-
cause there was another execution in the
hands OF another person; their authority
was the execution in their hands.
4 NHUUH 90
! Is not enough; willfully aud corruptlv are
the material words. Does the testimony
show that such corrupt motive existed?
The object OF Introducing proof of the
bad reputation of COrrigan his reputation
for resisting officers when arrested, and
creating trouble, is upon the theory, If
such be the fact that these officers were
authorized 10 use more vigilance in the
discharge of their duties. But unless he
upon the occasion under consideration.
manifested disposition to escape, resist
or create trouble, that reputation would
Afford no reason for acting In rude and
violent manner, If the proof shows that
they did so act.
So in regard to the general good official
character of the defendants, ii such be the
proof, that will not excuse them, If on the
particular occasion they were oppressive in
office. Any undue, unnecessary, and vio-
lent rudeness or severity, without corrupt
motives. would constitute assault and bat
terry. The conduct of the defendants, after
the offer TO pay Off the execution, If that
be proved, would constitute assault and
| battery.
| The jury, this afternoon returned a
verdict of guilty against Scully in manner
and form as alleged in the Indictment, and
found Thomas not guilty upon the first
count of the Indictment, but guilty on the
second count Of assault and battery. The
court sentenced Scully to pay fine of $50,
and Thomas 10 pay a fine of $40, and costs
of prosecution.
Munger & Howard, for the State; s..
Craighead, for the defence.