Case ID: ohio-ca_28/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EXEMPTION FROM JURY SERVICE.
    Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
    State of Ohio, on the Relation of James O. Cutler and Simeon Nash, v. John B. Miles, as Clerk of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County.
    Decided, May 17, 1917.
    
      Constitutional Law — Validity of Amended Section 5211, Relating to Exemption from Military Service.
    
    Section 5195 of the revised and recodified military laws of, the state (107 O. L., 387), providing that contributing members of the Ohio National Guard shall be exempt from jury service, is not open to the objection which rendered this provision invalid as it stood in its original form (Section 5211, G. C.), nor is it in conflict with any other constitutional provision but is valid and en-forcible.
    Turney, Olds & Sipe and Simeon Nash, for plaintiff.
    
      Robert P. Duncan, contra.
   By the Court

(Kunkle, Allread and Ferneding, JJi, concurring) .

This case is submitted to this court upon a demurrer to the petition of the plaintiffs.

. The action involves the constitutionality of the provisions of ■Section 5211, General Code, providing that contributing members to the Ohio National Guard shall be exempt from service as jurors.

We have carefully considered the authorities cited in the very exhaustive briefs which have been filed by counsel. We shall not, undertake to discuss in detail these authorities so cited, but will merely announce the conclusion at which we have arrived after a consideration of such authorities. We shall adopt this course for the reason that this case can, and doubtless will, be taken to the Supreme Court where it can be authoritatively reported.

A former act embodying some of the features of the act under consideration was before our Supreme Court in the ease of Eamann v. Heekin, 88 O. S., p. 207, wherein such former act was held unconstitutional.

We have carefully examined the present act in connection with the case above referred to, and are of opinion that the present act does not come within any of the objections made by the Supreme' Court to the former act, nor do we think it conflicts with any provision or limitation of the Constitution.

We appreciate the suggestion of counsel for defendant as to, the wisdom of the exemptions from jury duty provided in this act, but that is a question for consideration by the Legislature rather than by the courts.

Demurrer overruled.