Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_8/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE JONES LAW.
    [Circuit Court of Franklin County.]
    In The Rehearing Of A Petition On File Under What Is Known As The Jones Local Option Law.
    Decided, October, 1906.
    
      Liquor Laws■—Proceedings in Error—Proper Title—For Review in Circuit Court—Under the Jones Local Option Law—Granting Leave to File Petition in Error in Chambers—Uncertain Features of the Law.
    
    1. Where a review is desired of proceedings under the Jones local option law (98 O. L., 68), the qualified elector who feels aggrieved should appear as plaintiff and the mayor of the municipality in question as the defendant in error.
    2. Inasmuch as no express authority is given the judges of the circuit court in this statute or in any statute to grant leave to file a petition in error in vacation at chambers, a petition filed at such a time and by such leave must be stricken from the files.
    3. Whether the provisions for review under this statute are defective and void for uncertainty, and what effect that would have upon the law itself—Quaere?
    
    Wilson, J.; Sullivan, J., and Dustin, J., concur.
    In these cases it is sought to obtain a review in this court of the proceedings before the officers with whom the petitions were filed, and by whom the order was made in pursuance to the, provisions of the act popularly known as the J ones Local Option Law, 98 O. L., 68.. The provisions for review are found in Section 12 of that act. It is therein provided that:
    ‘ ‘ Any person being a qualified elector of any residence district of any municipal corporation, wherein a petition shall have been presented and held sufficient by a mayor or judge as provided for in this act, may prosecute error from such finding by first filing a motion for leave to file a petition in error with the circuit court of the county in which such residence district is situated. The motion shall not be granted unless for good cause shown. If such motion is granted, a petition in error shall be filed within fifteen days after the finding or decision of the mayor or judge, setting forth the errors complained of. The circuit court, upon the filing of suchpetition, shall forthwith issue a summons addressed to the mayor of such municipal corporation, notifying him of the filing of the petition in error and directing him to appear in said court on behalf of said residence district at the time mentioned in the summons, which time shall not be more than thirty days after the finding or decision of the mayor or judge, nor less than ten days after the filing of such petition. The circuit court shall have final jurisdiction to hear and determine the merits of the proceedings, and there shall be no appeal or error proceedings allowed from such decision.”
    The cases are all submitted upon the question as to whether they are properly in court, and for a determination of the character of the proceedings here, if the petitions in error are found to be properly filed.
    As preliminary to the conclusion we have evolved out of the obscurity of the statute, it may be said that the proceedings are not properly entitled in this court. The qualified elector who feels aggrieved should appear as the plaintiff in error, and the mayor of the municipality in question as the defendant in error.
    In each of the cases the leave to file the petition in error was granted by two of the judges of the circuit court sitting at chambers. ,The Circuit Court of Franklin County was in vacation at the time, and no term of the court was to be holden until long after the expiration of the fifteen days in which the petition in error must be filed. Did the judges of the court have power at chambers to grant the leave to file the petition -in error ? The Constitution provides, “The judges of the Supreme Court, of the common pleas and such other courts as may be created, shall respectively have and exercise such power and jurisdiction at chambers or otherwise, as may be directed by law.” Constitution of Ohio, Article IY, Section 18.
    “The general doctrine is that all judicial business must be transacted in court, whether there be any express direction to that effect or not; and that such business as may be transacted out of court is exceptional and must find express authority in statute.” 4 Enc. Pleadings & Practice, 337, and authorities there cited.
    “It is a fundamental principle that courts can exercise judicial functions only at such times and places as are fixed by law, and that the judges of courts can enter no order in vacation except such as are expressly authorized by statute.” Blair v. Beading et al, 99 111., 600.
    No express authority is given the judges in the statute in question, or in any statute, to grant the leave to file the petition in error in vacation at chambers. The petitions in error were, therefore, filed without authority of law and will be stricken from the files.
    The other questions raised must be reserved until a proceeding in error, has been properly instituted. The question whether the provisions for review are defective and void for uncertainty, and what effect that would have upon the law itself must await such a proceeding.
    The existence of the .jurisdictional facts which must underlie the order to give it vitality and validity, may be challenged in another forum.
    
      Addison & Addison, Gumble c6 Gamble and C. G. Williams. for plaintiff in error.
    
      Wayne B. Wheeler, for defendant in error.