Case ID: ohio-np-ns_16/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fulton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PROSECUTION FOR. VIOLATION OF LIQUOR LAWS.
    Common Pleas Court of Delaware County.
    Daniel Lynch v. State of Ohio.
    Decided, 1913.
    
      Intoxicating Liquors — Jurisdiction of Mayor Over Violations of Liquor Selling Laws Occurring Within the County.
    
    The mayor' of a village has jurisdiction in case of an alleged illegal keeping of a place for the sale of intoxicating liquor in a municipality located in the same county.
    
      Marriott, Freshwater & Wickham, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. A. White, contra.
   Fulton, J.

Daniel Lynch, the plaintiff in error, was prosecuted before H. W. Stone, mayor of the village of Sunbury, Delaware county, Ohio, upon an affidavit filed by T. .B. Williams, sheriff of Delaware county, Ohio, which affidavit reads as follows, leaving out the formal parts:

"That from the first day of September, A. D. 1912, until the 12th day of May, 1913, in the city of Delaware, state of Ohio, county of Delaware, one Daniel Lynch was then and there the unlawful keeper of a place where intoxicating liquors were then and there unlawfully sold by the said Daniel Lynch in violation of the act of the General Assembly of the state of Ohio with reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors in the state of Ohio, to the common nuisance of the citizens and people of the said state of Ohio, and contrary to Section 13195 of the General Code and to the place and dignity of the state of Ohio. Further deponent says not. (Signed) ST. B. Williams.”

Said Daniel Lynch was arrested upon a warrant issued upon said affidavit, and was taken before said mayor, and upon a hearing was found guilty of the charge contained in said affidavit, and a fine was assessed against him of $500.

A petition in error has been filed in this court to reverse the judgment of the mayor.

The court has carefully examined the affidavit and the briefs of counsel, and has given to this case such consideration as it has been able, and the court thinks it has carefully considered every point which has been raised by plaintiff in error to set aside the judgment of the mayor.

The court thinks that this case is similar in every respect to the ease reported in the 12 C.C.(N.S.), 330, except that the prosecution in that case was in the city of Delaware, Ohio — the prosecution in this case now under consideration being in the village of Sunbury, Ohio.

The court is of the opinion that the mayor of Sunbury had jurisdiction to hear and determine this case, and that the case reported in the 12 C.C.(N.S.), above referred to, which was Daniel Lynch v. State of Ohio, and which was heard and determined in the circuit court, and afterwards affirmed by the Supreme Court of this state, controls and is binding upon this court, and for that reason this court affirms the judgment of the mayor of Sunbury.

As to the fine assessed against the plaintiff in error in this case, the court thinks that, under Section 13195 of the General Code, the mayor had the right to fine the plaintiff in error in the sum of $500. The statute says he shall not be fined less than $100 nor more than $500. The fine of the mayor in this case is not beyond the limits of the statute. Exceptions may be noted.