Case Name: AUGUSTUS DUFRAS vs. JOHN WASHINGTON
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1849-10
Citations: 12 Mo. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: AUGUSTUS DUFRAS vs. JOHN WASHINGTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
AUGUSTUS DUFRAS vs. JOHN WASHINGTON.
The “ law commissioner of St. Louis county’’ has not jurisdiction of actions for false imprison, ment.
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT,
Garesche for plaintiff.
Has then the law commissioner jurisdiction of an action of trespass for false Imprisonment 1 We contend that he has not, and refer the court to the act entitled “an act supplementary to an act entitled “ an act respecting the law commissioner,’’ approved February 4th 1847.’’ Seesesstoii acts ’46, ’47 p. 91. By the first section of this act concurrent j urisdiction is given to the commie-, sioners with justices of the peace in all actions and proceedings mentioned in 2d and 3d sections. 1st art. of an act to establish justices courts, and regulate proceedings therein, approved 26th March 1845, and he is made “subjeot to the same rules and regulations which apply to and regulate proceedings in justices courts.”
Sec. 3d of the 1st article mentioned concerning justices courts, forbids a justice of entertaining any action for false imprisonment. This we submit is as binding upon the law commissioner as upon any justice of the peace.
Geo. R. Taylor for defendant.
The trial' took place upon the first of May, and the motion in arrest was filed on the seventeenth, more than four days after the judgment and verdict, while the statute, Rev. code 1815, p. 820-sec. 1, requires that they shall be filed within four days, so that tho motion came too lato.
The next question is, upon the motion to set aside for irregularity. Now what is the irregularity ’complained of 1 The defendant appeared to the suit below before the law commissioner, appealed and appeared in"the circuit court; in both of which courts jddgmcnt was given against him upoftthe merits—so that there was no irregularity. The only question that can arise, is the question of jurisdiction, and the irregularity arising from tho want of it. Bv the common law, the action ■ takes its fcharacter from the wfit, and the writ in this "case is trespass for assault and battery ; thd charge for false imprisonment may then be stricken out as surplusage, and' the action stands for assault and battery. The complainant charges that the defendant beat, bruised, and injured the plaintiff, and is, in all its character, for assault and battery, and of this action tho commissioner has jurisdiction. The exception not having been td-ken below, as part of the declaration was good, the judgment will not be reversed because part'ivas b'ad: but the judgment will he allowed to stand. Rev. code 635 see. 3, justices have jurisdiction of actions for injuries to persons or property.
In'this case, the suit is not prosécuted for false imprisomhent, under an illegal prócess, or an-erroneous process. The question of false imprisonment does not therefore arise. It is simply an injury to the personal rights of another by an assault without authority of law, without process of a court, and of the mere will of'tho defendant, who olióse to mako thola'w for his own occasion.
But farther in this case, the deféndant, as appears by the record, paid and satisfied the judgihént before the motion for a new trial was filed, and long before the motion in arrest, anil is worth íhe while to have the matters agitated in this court, so long after tho matters have beeh settled.
For thése reasons, the counsel for defendant in error submits, that the 'judgment of the court below should bo allowed to stand.

Opinion:
Judge Birch
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was originally instituted before " the law comniissioner of St. Louis county, " where Washington, the plaintiff below, had a judgment, as he had subsequently an appeal to the circuit court.
Upon examining the record, the declaration is perceived to be, in "substance and in form, for trespass, false imprisonment—and the law commissioner having no jurisdiction of such a Cáse, the judgment of the circuit court must needs he reversed, without reference to the timé 'the motion was made, or any other consideration.
It is accordingly reversed.