Case Name: John Harper v. The State of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1857-12
Citations: 7 Ohio St. 73
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Harper v. The State of Ohio.
Judges: Swan, Brinkerhoee, Bowen, and Scott, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 7
Pages: 66–67

Head Matter:
John Harper v. The State of Ohio.
Under the act of May 1, 1854, “ to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors in the State of Ohio,” prosecutions may be commenced by indictment, without any preliminary examination before a justice of the peace, or mayor. ,
This is a motion for the allowance of a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Guernsey county.
'¡-The material facts upon which the application is based are as follows:
Harper was indicted in the court of common pleas of Guernsey county, in’ June, 1857, for keeping a tavern‘where intoxicating liquors were sold by him in violation of the act of May 1, 1854, “ to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors in the State of Ohio.” In the common pleas Harper, by his counsel, moved to quash the indictment, because the prosecution was not commenced on a written complaint under oath or affirmation before a justice of the peace or mayor, insisting that the court had no jurisdiction of the offense charged.
The court overruled this motion, and the prisoner excepted, and having entered a plea of “ not guilty,” went to trial and was convicted.
Thereupon Harper, by counsel, moved the court to set the verdict aside, on the ground that it was against the law and the evidence ; but the court overruled the motion and pronounced sentence upon him.
S. W. Andrews, and Grimes & Guille, for Harper.

Opinion:
Bartley, J.,
announced the opinion of the court. The act under which Harper was indicted expressly provides that in such cases the prosecution may be commenced by indictment as well as by a written complaint under oath or affirmation before a justice of the peace or mayor. In this case it was not necessary, in order to give the common pleas jurisdiction, that a preliminary examination before a justice of the peace or mayor should have been made. "When such preliminary examination is had the statute provides the manner in which the accused shall be charged, but does not, when prosecutions under the act are by indictment, make it necessary to have such preliminary examination.
"We find no error in the record in this case, and therefore overrule the motion.
Swan, Brinkerhoee, Bowen, and Scott, JJ., concurred.