Volume 95 — Ohio State Reports, New Series

In Mandamus. This is a proceeding in mandamus instituted in this court by the relators, Joseph Menning, F. T. Andrews and Pierce D. Metzger, who are the county commissioners of Cuyahoga county, Ohio.

On September 17, 1915, plaintiff in error, Herman Wessell, was arrested by a constable, Charles L. Timberlake, charged with violation of Section 6346-1, General Code (106 O. L., 281), in that said Wessell “did on or about the 17th day of September,- 1915, in the county of Hamilton and state of Ohio, unlawfully” etc., engage and continue in the business of making loans on plain notes at a charge or rate of interest in excess of eight per cent, per annum, without a license.

This was an action in slander brought by E. T. Black against the plaintiff in error. Judgment was obtained in the sum of $1000 in the trial court, which was affirmed by the court of appeals. Error is prosecuted in this court to reverse that judgment. The Citizens Gas & Electric Company is a corporation engaged in the distribution of gas and electricity in various places, including the city of Lorain, Ohio.

The city of Cleveland, by W. S. FitzGerald, its director of law, filed its petition in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county against the defendants in error, praying for an injunction against the issue and sale of bonds referred to in the petition.

In Mandamus. This is a proceeding in mandamus which seeks by peremptory writ to direct the auditor of Cuyahoga county to place upon the tax list of Cuyahoga county a certain amount to be raised by taxation for the purposes stated in the petition. The petition alleges that the city of Cleveland is under orders of the state board of health to build works for the disposal of its sewage and to prevent the pollution of.

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton</p> <p>Facts are stated in opinion.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Belmont county.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Seneca county.</p>

This action was brought by William Rohrer against Frank S. Porter for false imprisonment, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff. On June 19, 1914, judgment was entered on the verdict. A bill of exceptions was filed with the clerk of the trial court on July 29, 1914, and notice thereof served on opposite counsel on the day following.

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Williams county.</p> <p>Facts are stated in opijiion.</p>

<p>In Mandamus.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Seneca county.</p> <p>Facts are stated in opinion.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Coshocton county.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.</p>

This action was instituted in the court of appeals of Hamilton county on November 11, 1914, by the relator, Gerhard Fischer, who there sought a writ of mandamus requiring his reinstatement to the position of machinist in the department of public service of the city of Cincinnati, from which he had been discharged by the order of the director of public service, November 9, 1914.

On October 16, 1915, the board of county commissioners of Butler county, Ohio, adopted a resolution reciting that it deemed it “necessary to have a clerk who can devote his entire time to the discharge of the duties of such position,” and that “commencing October 18, 1915, W. W. Crawford be and is hereby employed as Clerk of this Board at a salary of $125 per month, payable monthly.

This was a proceeding brought by the defendant in error, Josephine Marleau, in the common pleas court of Lucas. The petition of the plaintiff below prayed for alimony against the defendant, Dolphus J. Marleau, on the statutory grounds set forth in detail in the petition.

On the' 7th day of January, 1916, the state of Ohio upon relation of Willis R. Godfrey, taxpayer, filed an amended petition in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, averring: That relator is a resident, citizen and taxpayer of the county of Cuyahoga and brings suit on behalf of himself and all other taxpayers of Cuyahoga county; that the defendant, P. C. O’Brien, is the duly elected, qualified and acting county treasurer, and that John A. Zangerle is the duly…

This was a proceeding brought in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by it by reason of the breach of a contract made between the parties in August, 1912.

<p>State medical board — Revocation of physician’s certificate — Notice of hearing and appeal — Sections 1275 and 1276, General Code, unconstitutional — Due process of law.</p>

This was a proceeding brought by the defendants in error, John C. Royer and Calvin D. Spitler, in the probate court of Seneca county.

In Mandamus. This is an original action in mandamus instituted in this court.

Defendant in error brought an action against plaintiff in error in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract for the sale of real estate, a copy of which contract is attached to the petition and made part thereof as follows: “This agreement made and entered into, by and between Jean Armstrong Gebbie, hereafter to be known as party of the first part, and Max Efros, hereafter to be known as party of the second part,…

On the 28th day of July, 1914, the city of San-dusky, Ohio, adopted a charter which by its terms took effect for all purposes on the 1st day of January, 1916.

The attorney general, on behalf of Frank Pond, brought suit in the court of common pleas of Franklin county against Percy Fassig, the plaintiff in error. Pond was an employe of Fassig, who was an employer in the state of Ohio, having in his service five or more workmen regularly employed in the same business, or in or about the same establishment.

In Prohibition. This is a petition for prohibition filed by Daniel M. Smith against the Industrial Commission of Ohio.

This is a proceeding in error to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.</p>

<p>In Prohibition.</p>

On January 12, 1915, an election was held in the village of Richwood, Union 'county, Ohio, under the provisions of Section 6127 et seq., General Code, for the purpose of determining “whether the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage” should be prohibited within the municipal limits. The village contained two voting precincts.

This is a proceeding in mandamus originating in the court of appeals of Franklin county.

<p>In Quo Warranto.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Plaintiff in error, Charity Ann Robinson, filed an application .in the probate court of Knox county in which she asked that the guardianship over her person and estate be terminated. Upon the hearing of this application, William PI. Wagner, her guardian, and the next of kin of said ward being present, the probate court found from the evidence that she had been restored to reason and ordered that the guardianship terminate.

The defendant in error, Walter Gillette, administrator, brought suit in the common pleas court of Delaware county against the plaintiff in error, Eli M. West, receiver of The Columbus, Delaware & Marion Railway Company, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of Albert N. Gillette, who was killed on the 11th day of January, 1913, while driving his horse attached to a buggy upon and over the crossing of Olentangy avenue and San-dusky street within the corporate…

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

The petition in the Bumiller case alleged that on April 29, 1910, Walker executed his written lease of premises to Bumiller for the term of one year from May 10, 1910, at a yearly rental of $480, payable in monthly installments of $40, in advance, on the 10th day of each month; that Bumiller entered into possession and occupied the premises for the prescribed term; that on May 10, 1911, Bumiller paid his thirteenth monthly-rent installment of $40 and continued to remain in…

In Prohibition. The relator in this case, invoking the original jurisdiction of this court in prohibition, is asking that an order issue restraining the judges of the court of appeals of the first appellate district from enforcing a certain judgment against him. The case was submitted upon the pleadings and the report of a master commissioner authorized by this court to take testimony and proofs pertinent to the issues raised by the pleadings.

In Mandamus. This is a proceeding brought in this court. The relator, John Myers, alleges in his petition that on May 30, 1914, Spencer township was one of the duly organized and existing townships of Lucas county and for the purpose of education constituted the township school district; that on said day the township was divided for school purposes into six subdistricts, each of which was bounded by definite lines, and in each of which there existed a schoolhouse in which…

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Licking county.</p> <p>This case originated in the court of common pleas of Licking county. According to the allegations of the petition, the defendant in error paid plaintiffs in error money on account of the purchase price of a tract of real estate which they had sold to her and which they had agreed to convey by deed of general warranty. They refused to carry out their part of the agreement and she sought to recover the amount of money paid to them on account of the purchase price of the real estate. The case was tried to a jury upon the pleadings and the evidence, and resulted in a verdict for defendant in error in the amount claimed in the petition.</p> <p>After the peremptory challenges of plaintiffs in error had been exhausted, S. S. Cooperrider, Henry 'Pfeifer and Wales C. Collins were accepted as jurors over the objection of plaintiffs in error. The examination of Cooperrider on his voir dire, as shown by the record, is as follows:</p> <p>Q. Mr. Cooperrider, were you a depositor in the Homestead Building & Savings Company, or in the Newark Savings Bank? A. In the Bank.</p> <p>Q. Have you some feeling against Mr. Lingafelter on that subject? A. I certainly have.</p> <p>Q. And if you would start in to try this case, you would start in with that feeling against him, wouldn’t you? A. It would depend upon whether this case had anything to do with that.</p> <p>Q. Well, you say you have a feeling against Lingafelter. A. I have, yes.</p> <p>Q. And whether this case has anything to do with the bank failure or not, you still have a feeling against Lingafelter ? A. I have, yes sir.</p> <p>Q. And you would start into this case with that feeling in your mind? A. I couldn’t get that out of my mind very well, no, sir.</p> <p>By S. L. James: I challenge him for cause.</p> <p>The Court: Q. Where do you live? A. In Bowling Green township.</p> <p>Q. That is several miles from this city? A. Yes, sir, about fifteen miles.</p> <p>By L. C. Russell: This case has no connection with that matter.</p> <p>By S. L. James: We do not claim that it has.</p> <p>The Court: The Court wishes to know whether you could hear the' evidence that will be submitted to you in this case and, under the charge of the court, and, after the charge of the court, render a fair and impartial verdict ? A. I would do that’ after I took an oath to that effect, yes, sir.</p> <p>Q. Could you do that? A. Yes, sir, I could do that.</p> <p>Q. You could lay aside any prejudice you might have against Mr. Lingafelter and render your verdict upon the evidence and upon the evidence alone ? A. Yes, sir.</p> <p>The Court: I will overrule the challenge.</p> <p>By Mr. James: Note an exception.</p> <p>A motion for new trial was overruled and judgment was rendered on the verdict. This judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals and upon application of plaintiffs in error the court of appeals was directed to certify its record to this court.</p>

<p>Court of appeals no authority — To reverse inferior court — For insufficient evidence — Unless all judges concur.</p> <p>A court of appeals is without authority to reverse a judgment of an inferior court on the ground that such judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence, ■ unless the judgment of reversal is concurred in by all of the judges of the court.</p>

<p>Presidential electors — Form of ballot — Method of marking — Separate ballot — Amendment of statutes — Sections 5017 and 5021, General Code.</p>

<p>Error to the Industrial Commission of Ohio.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Delaware county.</p>

<p>Continuation of railzvay service — Objection to order of utilities commission — Time of operation not sufficient for determination of court.</p>

<p>Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.</p>

<p>In Quo Warranto.</p>

<p>Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of Muskingum county.</p>