Case ID: ohio-st_119/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Robinson, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Costanzo v. The State of Ohio.
    (No. 21375
    Decided October 17, 1928.)
    
      Messrs. Lombardo & LoPresti, for relator.
    
      Mr. E. G. Stanton, prosecuting attorney, for-defendant.
   The court being fully advised in the premises finds that the bonds heretofore required of the minors, Joe Costanzo, aged fifteen years, and Mary Costanzo, aged ten years, in the sum of $10,000 each, are excessive; and the Court further finds that any bond required of each of said minors, in excess of $500, would likewise be excessive.

It is therefore ordered that unless said minors Joe Costanzo and Mary Costanzo be permitted to enter into recognizances with sufficient sureties, in a sum not to exceed $500 each, that they he discharged from custody.

Writ allowed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Robinson, J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the judgment in this case, for the reason that it was admitted in open court upon the hearing of this cause that the sole purpose of committing the two minors, Joe Costanzo and Mary Costanzo, to jail was to prevent their mother and' others from communicating with them. The statute does not authorize a commitment for any such purpose.