
    FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
    [Summit (8th) Circuit Court,
    September Term, 1905.]
    Marvin, Winch and Henry, JJ.
    
      John E. Washer et al. v. Harry Iler.
    1. Error in Exercise of Judicial Functions no Defense fob Acts of Mayor BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION.
    A mayor’s court -is one of inferior jurisdiction and the mayor must keep within his jurisdiction. Hence, a mayor, continuing for more than the four days prescribed by Rev. Stat. 7143 (Lan. 10896) the preliminary hearing of one arrested for cutting another with intent to wound,' and committing him to the city prison without mittimus during such period, cannot shield himself from an action for false imprisonment, upon the ground of error in the exercise of judicial functions.
    2, Mayor, Chief of Police and Keeper of Prison Equally Liable for False IMPRISONMENT.
    Imprisonment in a city prison by the keeper thereof, upon order of the chief of police, for five days, upon the continuance of the hearing for seven days, of one brought before a mayor for examination, charged with cutting with intent to wound, is illegal because he was unlawfully detained for more than four days and in a place other than the county jail, without written order of the mayor, designating the city prison" as the place of confinement, contrary to Rev. Stat. 7143 (Lan. 10896); and the mayor, chief of police and keeper of the prison were all concerned in the false imprisonment and are equally liable to respond in damages therefor.
    [For other cases in point, see 4 Cyc. Dig., “False Imprisonment,” §§ 15-27.— Ed.]
    [Proof of this decision and syllabus was submitted to Judge Winch and corrected. — Ed.]
    Error to Summit common pleas court.
    Rogers, Rowley & Rockwell," for plaintiffs in error.
    Holloway & Chamberlain, for defendant in error.
    
      
       Affirmed by Supreme Court, without report, Washer v. Iler, 52 Bull. 67; 75 Ohio St. 000.
    
   WINCH, J.

Plaintiffs in error are the mayor of Akron, its chief of police and the keeper of the city prison, against whom defendant in error recovered a judgment for false imprisonment, from which judgment, error is prosecuted to this court, the only error relied upon being that the petition does not state a cause of action.

It appears that Iler was arrested for cutting with intent to wound and taken before the mayor for examination. The mayor continued the hearing for seven days, and verbally ordered Iler confined in the city prison unti] the hearing, but made out no mittimus or other order for his detention therein. The chief of police ordered the prison keeper to carry out the order of the mayor, and Iler was confined for five days, until he was released on a writ of habeas corpus.

He claims that his confinement was unlawful and in violation of Rev. Stat. 7143 (Lan. 10896), in two respects: First, because he was committed and confined for more than four days; and, second, because he was detained in a place other than the jail of the county, to wit, tin-city prison, without the written order of the mayor, designating that, place of confinement.

It must be conceded that for these reasons the confinement of Iler was unlawful; and it must be further conceded that all three of the plaintiffs in error were concerned in the false imprisonment and all equally liable to respond in damages therefor, under the decision in the case of Leger v. Warren, 62 Ohio St. 500 [57 N. E. Rep. 506; 78 Am. St. Rep. 738], unless the mayor’alone may shield himself from liability by a claim which he makes that he erred only in the exercise of judicial functions, for which he is not answerable. This claim made on behalf of the mayor is not an open question in. Ohio. The mayor’s court is one of inferior jurisdiction, and the mayor must keep within his jurisdiction at his peril. Truesdell v. Combs, 33 Ohio St. 186; Truman v. Walton, 59 Ohio St. 517, 529, 530 [53 N. E. Rep. 57].

Judgment affirmed.

Marvin and Henry, JJ., concur.  