
    Seville v. Wagner.
    
      Attachment proceedings before justices of the peace — When may be reviewed on error.
    
    1. An order of a justice of the peace discharging or refusing to discharge au attachment, may be reviewed by petition in error in the court of common pleas, and for that purpose a bill of exceptions may be taken, embodying all the evidence upon the hearing of the motion to discharge, together with the ruling of the justice, and the exceptions thereto.
    2. Where the weight of the evidence is the only question presented by such bill of exceptions, this court will not enter upon its review, or disturb the judgment of the court below thereon; but when the party against whom an order of attachment is obtained, in support of his motion to discharge the same, by his affidavit denies the ground of the attachment stated in the affidavit therefor, it devolves upon the party procuring the attachment, to establish such ground by proper ■evidence ; and whether there is any evidence tending to sustain it, is a ■question of law, which the parties may have determined by this court.
    (Decided October 16, 1888.)
    Error, to the District Court of Cuyahoga County.
    On the 8th day of February, 1883, Philip Vagner commenced an action against Joseph Seville, before a justice of the peace, on an account for goods sold and delivered, and obtained therein an order of attachment, which the defendant, upon due notice and before the trial, moved to discharge; and in support of the motion, filed his affidavit denying the charge made in the plaintiff’s affidavit, on which the attachment was procured. The motion was heard upon testimony, and overruled, and a bill of exceptions embodying all the evidence, the ruling of the .justice, and the defendant’s exceptions, was taken and entered of record. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of his claim, and directing the application of the attached property to its payment, the defendant filed his petition in error in the court of common pleas, and obtained a reversal of the order of the justice refusing to discharge the attachment.
    The judgment of the common pleas was reversed by the district court, and this proceeding in error is now prosecuted to reverse the district court.
    
      George A. Groot, for plaintiff in error.
    If the common pleas has power, under the statute, to review attachment proceedings upon error from a justice of the peace upon the evidence, then the action of the district court is erroneous, and should be reversed.
    Counsel for the defendant in error relies upon the decision of the supreme court made in the.case of Baer, Horkeimer & Co. v. Otto, 34 Ohio St. 11.
    Since the decision of the court in that case, the legislature has come to the relief of those who are unfortunate enough to be dragged into a justice court upon attachment proceedings, and has provided a remedy against the great abuse of power lodged in the hands of justices in respect to such cases. Sections 6522-6525 Revised Statutes, 1880.
    If attachment proceedings could be reviewed on error from the common pleas under the code before the revision, such proceedings are certainly reviewable on error from a justice court under the statutes, as they now exist. Section 6524 specifically authorizes a bill of exceptions to be prepared, signed and sealed, to reverse, vacate or modify an order of attachment made by a justice of the peace, and any party to a suit affected by an order made by a justice in discharging or refusing to discharge an order of attachment, shall have the right to file in the eommon pleas court a petition in error to reverse, vacate or modify the same.
    
    How is the court to modify an order in such proceedings, or any proceedings, unless it has the facts before it for that purpose ?
    
      The decision of this court, in Young v. Gerdes, 42 Ohio St. 102, is confirmatory of my position, and it substantially decides the real question made in this case.
    
      Wilson & Syhora, for defendant in error.
    We concede that the common pleas may look at the bill of exceptions and say there is no evidence whatever. That is a question of law. They cannot reverse on a question of the weight of the evidence before a justice. Baer v. Otto, 34 Ohio St. 11.
    An order of the justice of the peace, made on a motion to discharge an order of attachment, cannot be reviewed on proceedings in error, where the error alleged is that the order was against the weight of the evidence.
    
    Section 6524 does not militate against the argument. That section must be construed in -harmony with section 594, subdivision 8. So construed in harmony it will read that a bill of exceptions on a question of law may be signed for that purpose. Any other construction will render the two statutes inharmonious, overrule the 34 Ohio St. and lead to the absurdity of making a poor oppressed justice of the peace record the evidence without ány law to warrant him in taxing costs therefor. State ex rel. v. Franklin Co., 20 Ohio St. 421, 424.
    Statutes in pari materia should be so construed as to give effect to all their provisions, and if they can be construed so as to stand well together, there is no repeal by implication. Hirn v. State, 1 Ohio St. 15, 20; More v. Given, 39 Ohio St. 661.
   Williams, J.

The ground for the attachment, as stated in the affidavit on which it was procured, is, that the defendant has property or rights in action which he conceals.” This charge having been denied by the affidavit of the defendant, it devolved upon the plaintiff to sustain it by proper evidence. Without such evidence, it was the duty of the justice to discharge the attachment; and his order refusing to discharge it, was reviewable by petition in error, in the court of common pleas. Such proceeding is specifically authorized by section ■6524 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that “ any party to a suit, affected by an order discharging or refusing to dis•charge an order of attachment, shall be entitled to file a petition in error in the court of common pleas to reverse, vacate, or modify the same, and, when necessary, a bill of exceptions may be taken and signed for this purpose.” It is, however, -contended, that a bill of exceptions can only be taken to the -opinion of the justice upon some question of law, and that there is no authority for embodying in the bill, the evidence heai'd by the justice, for the purpose of reviewing his dfecisipn upon it. Baer v. Otto, 34 Ohio St. 11, is relied on in support -of this claim. It was said in that case, “that there is no pro - vision made by legislation, as it now stands, for preserving the ■evidence offered on such'mot-ion, or for reviewing the decision •of the justice, upon the ground that such order, either in granting or refusing the motion, is contrary to the evidence.”

When that case was decided, the only statute providing for Tills of exceptions in proceedings before justices of the peace, was the act of February 11, 1869 (66 Ohio L. 7), under which, the extent of the right of the party, was “ to except to "the opinion of the justice upon any question of law arising ■during the trial of the cause,” and, of the duty of the justice, to sign and seal a bill containing such exceptions, if truly alleged, with the point decided.” Since that decision, section 6524 has been made part of the justice’s code, and affords ample authority for taking bills of exceptions to the orders of Justices discharging or refusing to discharge orders of attachment. The section contains no such limitation as that contended for, but is broad enough to allow any questions to be raised by bills of exceptions taken under its provisions, that may properly be presented by a bill of exceptions. If the •question thus presented is simply one of the weight of the evidence, this court will not enter upon its review, or disturb the judgment of the conrt below. But, whether there was any evidence tending to* sustain the charge made in the affidavit for the attachment, is a question of law, which the plaintiff in ■error is entitled to have determined by this court. It is only with this view, that we have examined the bill of exceptions before us, and from such examination we conclude there was no evidence of that character.

The court of common pleas therefore rightly reversed the order of the justice of the peace, and dismissed the attachment, and in reversing that judgment, the district court erred.

Judgment of the district court reversed, and that of the common pleas affirmed,.  