Prosecution for an assault and battery. The case was submitted to the Court for trial, upon an agreement of facts set out in the record. Bruce, the defendant, was convicted.
The facts agreed are these: “The defendant, on the 6th of August, 1854, at the county of Decatur, committed an assault and battery on the body of one Demetrius Owens. The information in the present case, in which he is charged with that offense, was filed on the 9th of August, and on that day a warrant for his arrest was issued to the sheriff of Ripley county, where he then resided
The only question to settle in the case is, whether the conviction before the justice should be considered a bar to this prosecution. Justices of the peace have concurrent jurisdiction with the Common Pleas, to try and determine cases of assault and battery. 2 R. S. p. 497, s. 3. But here, the defendant in the first instance was arrested by process from a justice, who had tried and determined the cause before service of the warrant from the Common Pleas. Hence, it is insisted that, in view of the agreed case, he could not be subjected to another conviction. This conclusion seems to be correct. The proceedings before the justice were instituted in the mode prescribed by the statute. They appear to have been conducted regularly; and there is nothing in the record tending to show that their purpose was not legitimate. It is evident that the state, having prosecuted her suit against the defendant to final judgment before a competent Court, had no right to maintain a second prosecution for the same offense. The judgment of the Common Pleas must be reversed.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.