Case ID: ohio-law-abs_13/html/0353-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CLUCKEY v RASMUSSEN et
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Ottawa Co
    No 153.
    Decided Nov 21, 1932
    Floyd Hissong, Fremont, and Stahl, Stahl & Stahl, Fremont, for plaintiff in error.
    Scott Graves, Prosecuting Attorney, Port Clinton, for defendant in error.
   BY THE COURT

We are satisfied that the plaintiff in error can not substitute a hearing upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus for a trial upon the merits of the offense charged in the affidavit. The questions thus sought to be raised must be made at the trial, and if adversely determined may then be questioned in proceedings in error instituted for that purpose.

Tari v State, 117 Oh St, 481;

Nicholas v Cleveland, 125 Oh St, 474;

Ohio Bar, Aug. 29, 1932, p. 474;

Lamia v Cleveland, Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, NE Rep., October 12, 1832, p. 331. (12 Abs 611).

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is therefore affirmed.

LLOYD, RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.