Case ID: ohio-law-abs_17/html/0353-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By WILLIAMS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE ex ZANVILLE v TOLEDO (city) et
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co
    No 2936.
    Decided May 21, 1934
    Kaplan & Zanville, Toledo, for relator.
    Ralph W. Doty, Director of Law, Toledo, and A. E. Simmons, Toledo, for respondents.
   OPINION

By WILLIAMS, J.

It is clear that the so-called fee which a traffic violator is permitted to pay. within 48 hours, and thereby be released from prosecution for a traffic violation, is not a bill due the city within the meaning of the language of the scrip ordinance. The City could not maintain an action against a; traffic violator for such fee. He simply had the privilege of making such a payment in money within the prescribed time to avoid a prosecution and the penalty or fine which could be imposed upon conviction. The so-called fee of $1.00 is in itself in the nature of a penalty or forfeiture and could not be set off as a “Bill” against scrip owned and held by the traffic violator.

Petition dismissed and writ of mandamus refused.

RICHARDS and LLOYD, JJ, concur.