Case ID: ohio-cc-dec_23/html/0634-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SMITH, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DISORDERLY CONDUCT — MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
    [Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
    May 25, 1912.]
    Smith, Swing and Jones, JJ.
    
      In Re Opal Howard.
    Loitering Held- not a Punishable Offense.
    Municipal corporations have no authority delegated by Gen. Code 3616, 3664 to provide by ordinance for the arrest and punishment of those found loitering or .wandering about the streets.
    Error to the court of insolvency.
    
      Bernard G. Fox, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Lee Beatty, W. W. Hester and William Thorndyke, for defendant in error.
    
      
       Affirming Dunlap, In re, 57 Bull. 484.
    
   SMITH, P. J.

Under Gen. Code 3664 following Gen. Code 36l6 thereof, in which “All municipal corporations shall have the general powers mentioned in this chapter (Chap. 1, enumeration of powers), and council may provide by ordinance or resolution for the exercise and enforcement of them,” we find no power delegated to the city of Cincinnati to provide for the arrest and punishment of one “unlawfully found loitering about and wandering about the streets of the city of Cincinnati in the day time and the night time without any lawful means of support and without being able to give satisfactory account of himself.” ' . •

Under the above cited chapter and section the power to pass the ordinance in question in this case has not been delegated to the municipal corporation.

The conclusion of the court below was therefore correct, and the judgment is affirmed. .

Swing and Jones, JJ„, concur.