Ohio v. Lent

Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas

Ohio v. Lent

1 Tapp. Rep. 105

CourtGuernsey County Court of Common Pleas

DecidedMarch 15, 1817

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Tapp. Rep. 105 (Ohio v. Lent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ohio v. Lent, 1 Tapp. Rep. 105 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

President.

The complaint sworn to by Stiers, the witness before the magistrate, was the first step in this proceeding against Lent. [106]*106Upon complaint made on oath, a warrant issues; the complaint is a judicial proceeding; any person has a right to have a copy of it, and to have such copy certified by the magistrate. It is, therefore, in the power of every man. A copy, so certified, would be received as evidence in this court. It can no more be proven by parole, than the records of courts can be. And as to this, there is no distinction between an examination in chief and a cross examination, for in neither may illegal evidence be given. *

There can be no surprize here, upon the defendant; he must have known that a complaint was made; he must have heard it on his examination; there is not, therefore, any reason for admitting this evidence.- — -Verdict, guilty.

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

President.

The complaint sworn to by Stiers, the witness before the magistrate, was the first step in this proceeding against Lent. [106]*106Upon complaint made on oath, a warrant issues; the complaint is a judicial proceeding; any person has a right to have a copy of it, and to have such copy certified by the magistrate. It is, therefore, in the power of every man. A copy, so certified, would be received as evidence in this court. It can no more be proven by parole, than the records of courts can be. And as to this, there is no distinction between an examination in chief and a cross examination, for in neither may illegal evidence be given. *

There can be no surprize here, upon the defendant; he must have known that a complaint was made; he must have heard it on his examination; there is not, therefore, any reason for admitting this evidence.- — -Verdict, guilty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Tapp. Rep. 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-v-lent-ohctcomplguerns-1817.