The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1868-10-09
Important Decision.

an poA ednt DOeAoioA'
The District Court In session some
weeks since, rendered a decision Of
great importance to, ,jucicial and min
isterlal officers in inferior courts.
The case. originated as follows i;
George F. Orwick, defendant In er-
ror, was arrested at the village of
Mt. Blanchard. on the 20ths day of
April 1867, by Robert w. McVay,
marshal of said village, plaintiff in
error, for .disorderly. conduct, pro
fame swearing, drunkenness. DC, who
carried him before the Mayor, and
delivered him into the custody Of
said Mayor.
The Mayor without any written
affidavit or statement under oath of
said marshal or any other person,
took jurisdiction Of the case, and the
accussd not being ready for trial was
remanded to the village prison under
the care and keeping of the village
marshal, to be forthcoming at time
to which the case was adjourned,
without any written warrant or nit
timus from said Mayor.
Judge Mott, in the Court of Com
mon Pleas, at the January term Of
said Court at winch the ease was
tried in civil action for damages for
false Imprisonment, charged the jury
''that it was necessary in order to
give said Mayors jurisdiction of The
case, that he should have before him
the affidavit of the officer or some
other person, charging the accused
with some specific Offense known to
the laws and ordinances of said vii
lage, and to give the marshal author
ity to further detain or imprison the
criminal, it was necessary that the
Mayor make an order or mittimus
in writing, 7snd deliver the same to
the marshal" and that an entry upon
the Mayors docket 10 this effect was
not sufficient to protect the officer
against an action of false imprison-
ment. 49, IA Z G0
To this charge of the Court below,
the plaintiff in error excepted; and
filed his petition in error in the Dis
trict Court to have the judgment re-
yersed. '-n = - - 80 ''''" o., >
/, The case was conducted by John
M. Hamlin and Henry Brown, attor-
neys for plaintiff in error, and by
Shafer & Anderson, William Gribben
and M. D. Shafer, attorneys for de
tfendant in error. ,..,,,-...,, -,.,-sa.
The case was well presented to the
Court, and argued by counsel on
both sides of the case. The Court,
composed Of Judge Weleh ofthe
Supreme Court, and Judges Mott,
Pillars and Conklin of the Common
Pleas Court, took the case under ad,
yisement until the evening session,
and then rendered the following de-
cision, three members of the Court
Iconcurring: That the Court below
erred in charging the Jury as above
set forth,-Judge Mott alone dis
senting.
T. This decision seems to be an inl-
lportant Jsns in this iosaliry; as;it has
been the practice, as we understand,
in our Mayors Courts, to take juris
fdiction of minor offences where the
accused is arrested on view or infor
fmation, without. first having q com,
jplaint under osth Before him. and tc
Simply enter on the docket what dis
position was to be made with the
iprisoneE and not in many cases te
deliver to the officer q mlttim1st
Great credit is due Messrs. Hamlir
and Brown in carrying this case te
the District Court and there getting
the law in the case clearly dedned.1-
Thus far the officers of the law ir
said village have been protected in
kheir legal acts, Notwithstanding tho
] repeated efforts to break down the
1coporation and her officers, dand oui
advice to persons wanting to get OF
q drunk, Or who want TO keep out a
the hands Of these officers, Who arc
elected for the protection of the pub
llic, to 90 some where else and law
yers wanting business had better give
their time and attention to something
more honorable and profitable thar
bringing actions against officers o
tthe law for failing to fulfill some sup
lposed technicalities.