Bell v. Miller

5 Ohio 250
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1831·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court :

All concerned in the commission of a trespass are considered principals. An assault and battery may be committed by a party not present, if he be a principal actor in or adviser and promoter -of making the attack. If one person employ another to commit an assault and battery or any other trespass, and the act is perpetrated, both are guilty, and both responsible in damages. It was not supposed that this was now a debatable question. There is no error in the charge of the court.

[230] The record contains no proof of the fact that the interest of the witness was discovered after the trial, nor of the nature- and extent of that interest. In this state of the case that suggestion amounts to nothing. The same remark is applicable to the complaint that the verdict was against evidence. The evidence is not before this court, and consequently can not be acted upon.

New trial refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell v. Miller, 5 Ohio 250 (Ohio 1831).

5 Ohio 250 (Bell v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leichtman v. Wlw Jacor Communications, Inc.
634 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)
State Ex Rel. Carter v. Superior Court
138 P.2d 843 (Washington Supreme Court, 1943)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Schermer v. Franek
166 A. 878 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)