Case Name: Ohio, ex rel. Newshauler and Jones, v. D. L. Wood, Justice of the Peace
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1872-12
Citations: 22 Ohio St. 537
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ohio, ex rel. Newshauler and Jones, v. D. L. Wood, Justice of the Peace.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 22
Pages: 537–539

Head Matter:
Ohio, ex rel. Newshauler and Jones, v. D. L. Wood, Justice of the Peace.
1. Section 137 of tlie justices’ act (1 S.& O. 794), authorizing the taking of exceptions to the opinion of the justice, upon “questions of law and evidence,” in actions of forcible entry and detainer, does not extend to or include questions touching the weight or sufficiency of the evidence, but only such as relate to its competency.
2. Where there is evidence in such action of forcible entry and detainer tending to sustain the finding of the justice, and the only exception is to the finding itself, on the ground that it is not sustained by the evidence, the justice is not bound to sign a bill of exceptions setting forth all the evidence in the case and the fact of such exception.
Motion for the allowance of a writ of mandamus.
This is an application for the allowance of a writ of mandamus, to compel the defendant, as justice of the peace, to sign and seal a bill of exceptions.
The relators were defendants in a case of forcible detainer tried before the justice. The case was tried without a jury; and, at the close of the testimony and arguments of counsel, the justice announced that he found the defendants guilty. The defendants excepted to this finding, solely on the ground that it was not supported by the evidence, and presented to the justice, for allowance, a bill of exceptions setting forth all the evidence in the cause, and the fact that the finding of the justice was excepted to as aforesaid. The evidence thus set forth feuds to prove the guilt of the defendants. The justice refused to allow or sign this bill of exceptions; and the present application is for the purpose of compelling him to do so.
Heisley § Jleisley, for the motion.

Opinion:
By the Court.
"We know of no law making it the duty of a justice of the peace to sign such a bill of exceptions. It presents no question of law, and no question of the competency or tendency of the evidence. The act of April 12, 1858 (8. & C. 1155), which allows a bill of exceptions for the purpose of reviewing on error the issues of fact, or the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, does not apply to proceedings before justices of the peace. The provision in section 137 of the justices' act (1 S. & C. 794), allowing exceptions to be taken to the opinion of the justice, upon questions of " evidence," is to be understood as referring to questions touching the competency or relevancy of evidence, and not questions of its weight or sufficiency.
Writ refused.