Richardson v. Spencer
Ohio Supreme Court
Case against a sheriff for the negligent escape of a prisoner in jail on an execution, reserved in Licking. Plea, not guilty. At the trial, the plaintiff having proved his judgment, execution, arrest, commitment, and escape, rested. The defendant then offered evidence to prove that the escape arose from the insufficiency of the jail, and also that the debtor had no property. This evidence being objected to and ruled out, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Case against a sheriff for the negligent escape of a prisoner in jail on an execution, reserved in Licking. Plea, not guilty. At the trial, the plaintiff having proved his judgment, execution, arrest, commitment, and escape, rested. The defendant then offered evidence to prove that the escape arose from the insufficiency of the jail, and also that the debtor had no property. This evidence being objected to and ruled out, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff. The defendant now moves for a new • trial, because the evidence offered by him was improperly excluded from the jury.
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Wright
delivered the opinion of the court;
In the Commissioners of Brown v. Butt, 2 Ohio, 351, this court determined that it was incumbent upon the county to provide and keep up the public jail, and the duty of the sheriff to confine his prisoners in the county jail; that he had no voice in providing the 14] jail, *or in repairing it; nor any discretionary power to confine his prisoners anywhere else, in case of the insufficiency of the jail; and therefore, that “ where an escape happens in consequence of the want of, or the insufficiency of a jail, the county must be eventually liable…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel Billman v. HamiltonIndiana Supreme Court · 1870
- Kepler v. BarkerOhio Supreme Court · 1862
- Hootman v. ShrinerOhio Supreme Court · 1864