Case ID: ohio-law-abs_20/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By ROSS, PJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KAESTLE v URNER et
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
    No 4918.
    Decided Dec 16, 1935
    Alfred H. Myers, Cincinnati, and Hyman Rosen, Cincinnati, for plaintiff.
    John D. Ellis, Cincinnati, and Francis T. Bartlett, for defendants.
   OPINION

By ROSS, PJ.

There is nothing in the statute which requires the employe of the city to do anything which can be considered beyond the power of the city to direct.

There is nothing in the record to show that the services renderd the city are not reasonably worth the salaries now sought to be enjoined.

It- appears also in the agreed statement of facts that the receipts for costs paid into the Municipal Court exceed considerably the expenditures of the city properly chargeable to the court. The expense incident to the operation and maintenance of the Cincinnati Workhouse is an entirely immaterial consideration.

It is also stated in the agreed statement of facts that the County of Hamilton pays all of the salary- of the Clerk of Courts, who is Clerk of the Municipal Court, and such county pays a considerable sum toward defraying the salaries of Municipal Judges and prosecuting attorneys in such court.

It is our conclusion that it has not been shown that the provisions of the section of the Code — §1558-34, GC — are unconstitutional, or that the payment of the salaries are unwarranted in law.

A decree may be entered for the defendants.

MATTHEWS and HAMILTON, JJ, concur.