Sturgell v. Grand Union Tea Co. [13 Ohio American Bonding Co., 146 Wis., 573, 579; Capital Fire Ins. Co. v. Watson, 76 Minn., 387; Dietrich v. Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co., 56 Okla., 636; Federal Union Surety Co. v. Indiana Lumber & Mfg. Co., 176 Ind., 328, 333, and Sanders v. Keller, 18 Idaho, 590. But, while the evidence was admissible, it is not conclusive. 1 Elliott on Evidence, Section 253; Bissell v. Saxton, 66 N. Y., 55, and McShane et al. v. Howard Bank, 73 Md., 135. The sureties are liable only for the actual conduct of the principal, and not for whatever he might say he had done or omitted. (1 Greenleaf on Evidence [16 ed.], Section 187.) The court treated the account stated as conclusive upon all the parties defendant, and rejected evidence offered by them tending to show that the company owed money to Sturgell and that the admission by him of the amount due, as shown by the account stated, was correct. As we have seen from the foregoing an account stated consists of mutual admissions, and an express or implied promise to pay the balance due. To the extent that it constitutes a promise or agreement, the sureties were not parties to it. So far as it is an admission, they are entitled to refute it. They are not seeking to avoid the agreement made when Sturgell and the company stated their account. They are only seeking to disprove a breach of the bond, and their evidence to disprove the net amount due may be given under a general denial, like any other evidence tending to disprove a breach of their contract. It was error to exclude the evidence offered by Myers and Douglas. See United App.] Farmers Natl. Bk. v. Frazier. States v. Rundle, 107 Fed. Rep., 227, and Moses v. United States; 166 U. S., 571. As to the plaintiffs in error, other than Sturgell, the judgment will be reversed and a new trial ordered. Judgment accordingly. HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ., concur. and Judges of the First Appellate District, sitting in place of Judges of Judges ALLREAD, ALLREAD, FERNEDING KUNKLE, of the Second Appellate District. FARMERS NATIONAL BANK OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, V. FRAZIER. False imprisonment - Presenting forged check to bank — Questions for jury-Who caused arrest and authority of bank officersEffect of failure to honor check-Evidence - Abuse of discretion-Cross-examination limited by court - Hearsay evidence inadmissible, when. 1. In an action against a national bank for false imprisonment alleged to have been made upon authority of the president and general manager of such bank, it is the duty of the jury to determine: (a) Whether the president and general manager of the bank did in fact cause the arrest; (b) Whether such official had implied authority to represent and act for the bank in respect thereto. 2. The fact that the forged check upon which the arrest was based was not honored by the bank, but was retained and held by it, and that the bank therefore had no financial interest in the prosecution, can be considered by the jury, but such fact is not conclusive against the claim that the president and general manager had implied authority to cause the arrest of the party presenting the check. 3. The limitation by the trial court of the cross-examination of an important witness to five minutes, and the refusal of the trial Farmers Natl. Bk. v. Frazier. [13 Ohio court to permit further cross-examination upon material matters after the expiration of six minutes of cross-examination, upon the ground that such limitation had expired, constitutes an abuse of discretion and is erroneous. 4. Hearsay testimony tending to prove an admission by a third party that such third party committed the forgery is not competent in an action by the party actually arrested against the party alleged to have caused his arrest. (Decided July 23, 1920.) ERROR: Court of Appeals for Clark county. Messrs. Summers & Beard; Messrs. Stafford & Arthur and Mr. J. E. Bowman, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. McGrew & Laybourne, for defendant in error. BY THE COURT. Cleveland E. Frazier, defendant in error, brought suit in the court below for malicious prosecution, and recovered judgment. It appears that a forged check had been presented at the bank for payment. When the paying teller turned around to inquire as to the account of the alleged signer of the check, the party presenting the check fled. Frank Dock, the paying teller, a few minutes later, left the bank for lunch, and a short distance away discovered Frazier, who, Dock believed, answered the description of the party presenting the check. Dock accosted the party and invited him to go to the bank, where he was questioned, and asked to give specimens of his handwriting. The president, Mr. Felty, was called in, and both Dock and Felty believed the handwriting corresponded with that contained in the forged App.] Farmers Natl. Bk. v. Frazier. check. A policeman was sent for and Frazier was arrested and detained until the following morning, when he was released on bond. No indictment was returned and the prosecution was thereby ended. At the outset an interesting question of authority to bind the bank is raised. It is contended that no money having been obtained upon the forged check, and the check itself having been left with the bank, that the bank had no private interest in the prosecution, and therefore could not be bound by the action of the paying teller, or even of the president, in causing the arrest. It is also claimed that neither the paying teller nor the president had implied authority to cause such arrest and that they did not in fact do so. We are not without doubt upon this subject, but our conclusion based upon what we consider to be the better reasoning is that a bank may be held liable for an arrest where made by the president and general manager of the bank. Such president and manager would have implied authority if he at the time was acting for the bank and in the course of the bank's business. Whether he did so act and whether he caused the arrest of Frazier were questions of fact for the jury, under the evidence. Counsel for plaintiff in error also contend that the cause was tried upon the theory that it involved the question of the actual guilt of Frazier and not merely the question of reasonable ground for the arrest. The defense below to some extent put in issue the actual guilt of Frazier. To the extent that plaintiff's evidence was in rebuttal to the evidence offered by defendant it was competent. [13 Ohio Farmers Natl. Bk. v. Frazier. The plaintiff below offered two witnesses in chief, Frazier himself, and one Mackert who was with Frazier at the time Dock apprehended him. Mackert was an important witness for the plaintiff. After cross-examination of Mackert for a time, the trial court stated that the cross-examination had previously been limited to five minutes, and, when that time and one minute more had expired, the trial court upon that ground refused to permit any further cross-examination of the witness. Counsel conducting the cross-examination stated that he, desired to cover certain additional subjects, which he would disclose fully, in the absence of the jury, if permitted. This the trial court refused upon the ground that the time limit had expired. It is possible that a trial court may in a proper case fix a time limit for cross-examination, yet we cannot escape the conclusion that the cross-examination of a witness is an important right and that subject-matter rather than time should constitute the limitation. We cannot resist the conclusion that a limitation of five or six minutes on the crossexamination of an important witness, as shown by the record, is wholly insufficient. It does not appear that the case of Fabian v. State of Ohio, 97 Ohio St., 184, involved a time limit, but even if the trial court has a discretion to impose a time limit it should not be so applied as to take away the right of a fair cross-examination. A more serious error occurred, however, in the scope of the testimony of Thomas F. Hudson and J. P. Brown, as to the statements of one H. J. Furrow, whom they believed to be the party who actually presented the check for which Frazier was |