
    John Robinson v. The State of Ohio.
    In error to the probate court of Ross county.
    The record of the proceedings of the probate court shows that on "the 1st day of July, a. d. 1854, the prosecuting attorney of Ross ■county filed, in said court, an information against the plaintiff in error, charging him with a violation of the first section of the act of May 1, 1854, “ to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors in the State of Ohio.”
    The information was indorsed as follows : “ This information was filed on a transcript from the docket of William Skerritt, mayor of the city of Chilicothe. John H. Ware, prosecuting attorney.”
    The record does not contain a copy of the transcript of the mayor.
    *The plaintiff in error appeared in the probate court and [142 plead not guilty to the information; and at the August term, 1854, the issue was tried by a jury, and a verdict of guilty rendered.
    The plaintiff in error moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment entered on the verdict.
    To reverse this judgment this proceeding in error is prosecuted. And it is assigned for error :
    1. That the probate court had no jurisdiction in the premises, because the information aforesaid was filed without a preliminary examination of the charges therein contained by any mayor or justice - of the peace.
    II. The record nowhere shows that any mayor or justice of the-peace had found said charges to be true, or had recognized the said John Robinson to appear in said probate court, or committed him for want of a recognizance.
    III. The record contains no transcript, or even statement of any such preliminary examination, finding, recognizance, or commitment, or of either of them.
    IT. It does not appear that any such transcript was ever filed-in said probate court.
    
      A. G. Thurman, for the plaintiff in error, cited
    Miller & Gibson v. The State, 3 Ohio St. 475, 477, 489; Gates & Goodnoe v. The State, Ib. 293, 296, 297, 301; Aultfather v. The State, 4 Ohio St. 13; Ohio, 219; 1 Ohio St, 188; Ib. 234; 1 Chitty’s Or. Law, 719; Wright, 33; 17 Ohio, 225; 16 Ohio, 172.
   Bartley, C. J.,

held: 1. The probate court could not take original cognizance of violations of said act of May 1, 1854, at the time this .information was filed.

2. The record of the probate court in a criminal case ^should [Mil contain a copy of the' transcript of the examining magistrate, in. •every case in which, a preliminary examination is necessary to give the probate court jurisdiction.

3. A mere indorsement upon the information, by the prosecuting attorney, that it is filed upon a transcript from the docket of- a •certain magistrate, naming him, is insufficient.

Judgment reversed.

Swan, Brinkerhoee, Bowen, and Scott, JJ., concurred.  