
    *Robert Montgomery v. The State of Ohio.
    It ia competent for the court, on the hearing of a writ of error, to reverse im part, and to affirm in part, the sentence and judgment of a probate court in-a criminal case. Bonsal v. Ohio, 11 Ohio, 72; Lougee v. The State, Ib. 68
    An affidavit filed before a justice of the peace, charging a person with petit' larceny, will authorize his arrest, an inquiry into the complaint, and his-recognizance to the proper court, and confer jurisdiction on the latter, if it describe, substantially, the commission of the offense. - The failure to insert in such affidavit the name of the owner of the property which is alleged to have been stolen, does not entitle the defendant to a reversal of the proceedings.
    The return of the transcript and recognizance by justices of the peace, and other officers authorized to take the same, to the probate judge of the-counts', was necessary to give that officer jurisdiction of offenses; and the record of his court, to be sufficient to sustain a conviction and judgment - before him, must contain a transcript of proceedings before such justice, or other officer, in order to show that he properly acquired jurisdiction of the offense. Gates et al. v. The State of Ohio, 3 Ohio St. 293; Miller et al v. The State, Ib. 475; Aultfather v. The State, 4 Ohio St. 405; Robinson v The State, 6 Ohio St. 141.
    This is a writ of error to reverse the judgment of the district court of Richland county.
    The prosecuting attorney filed an information in the probate court charging Montgomery with stealing the property of the value of one dollar of Henry Deckison. Montgomery entered a plea of not guilty; but the jury found him guilty in manner and form as charged, and the court sentenced him to three days’ imprisonment on bread and water, and ordered that he “ make restitution to the person from whom the goods were stolen in twofold the value thereof.”
    To reverse these proceedings in the probate court, Montgomery prosecuted a writ of error in the district court.
    -■ The district court reversed the judgment of the probate court as to the order of restitution, and affirmed it in all other respects.
    ^Montgomery now seeks to reverse the judgment of the district court.
    It does not appear from the record of the proceedings in the probate court, that the charge upon which Montgomery was tried in that court had ever, before the case came there, been examined into, or made against him, before any justice of the peace or other examining officer.
    ■ There is with the papers of the case what purports to be a transcript of proceedings against Montgomery before a justice of the-peace; and this transcript is marked, “Filed October 25, 1854.”' It is not made a part of the record of the proceedings in the probate court, nor is it referred to by the probate judge, nor is there-anything else to identify it as a part of the proceedings in the case.
    This transcript sets forth that on the 17th of October, 1854, Henry Deekison made oath that a petit larceny was committed at-the county of Richland, by the stealing of seven cniekens, on or about the 14th of July, 1854, and that one Robert Montgomery was-guilty of the fact..
    The plaintiff in error insists that the district court erred:
    1. In reversing in part, and affirming in part, the judgment off the probate court.
    2. In not reversing the entire judgment, on the ground that the: probate court took original jurisdiction of the offense.
    
      McLaughlin & Stevens, for plaintiff in error.
    The Attorney- General, for the state.
   Bowen, J.

The plaintiff in error complains of the judgment off the district court in two particulars:

1. Because that the court reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the decision of the probate judge. This, it is well settled, may be-done. 11 Ohio, 68. There was nothing erroneous in that order.

2. The plaintiff insists that it was error in the probate court to-take original jurisdiction of the offense. This point has, likewise, «undergone judicial determination, and has been ruled adversely to the state, and favorably to the plaintiff. Gates et al. v. The State, 3 Ohio St. 293; Miller v. The State, 2 Ib. 476; Aultfather v. The State, 4 Ohio St. 467.

The record of the probate judge should show, upon the face of it, that the proceedings were instituted before the proper officer, who is empowered to recognize offenders, as provided by law. The transcript of the justice confers no aid to the record of the probate court. It is not attached to it, nor does it form any part of it. The judgment of the district court, in this particular, was-erroneous. It improperly sustained the original jurisdiction of the: probate judge over the offense.

The judgment is reversed, and cause remanded to the court of •common pleas of Richland county.

Bartley, C. J., and Swan, Brinkerhoee, and Scott, JJ., concurred.  