The Lancaster gazette. (Lancaster, Ohio) 1846-1852, 1849-11-23
Cincinnati Law COuTtS--Nov. l2
40, COMMON PLEAS COURT. Id.

- ! L----.-- -
Cincinnati Law COuTtS--Nov. 10
.t, COMMON PLEAS COURT. g....
The STATE, atMe relation Of Lewis Broad
qoeH, jill. Scott and G. w. Ruayaa, VS.
q. C. Roll, Clerk ofMe Courtof Com
mon Pleas. - ..s ......s
This morning being set for the opinion
of the Court in the matter of E. C. Roll,
Clerk, large number of the members of
the bar were in attendance at the sitting
of the Judges, considerable number Of
citizens, anxious to learn the result, be-
ing also present. i-e.i j.
Judge Hart proceeded to announce
the decision of the Court. They had
been able to find only two precedents to
guide them in correct decision of this
case-and none within the State of Ohio.
This he did not regret; on the contrary,
he rejoiced that. so far, some evidence
existed that official misconduct was OF
rare occurrence here. The complaint in
this instance, the first that had ever oc.
Cured within the county of Hamilton ,ex-
cept one instance 10 which Counsel
had referred. did not come before ihe
Court in the form of an Indictment; yet
it was in its nature a criminal proceed
criminal, because it stamped the
officer. with miscellaneous, and sent him
forth stripped of his office. These were
the consequences which would result if
the impeachment were sustained.
lu the present proceeding, what were
the principles by WHICH they were to be
governedl Were they at liberty to pre-,
sumo that the Clerk was guilty Of official
misconducll-or to act on evidence they
might have within themselves, not ad-
duced at the trial, and which the accused
had no opportunity to meet? No--upon
every principle Of law aud justice they
were bound to presume the respondent
innocent-a presumption which they
should act upon, unless it was met and
overthrown by satisfactory evidence and
if the evidence were found to exist in
this case, they should pronounce the ap.
propriate judgment without any regard
to consequences. s e.a. ...
Before proceeding to the proofs in this
case, it was proper they should advert Ia
The nature ef the officer as there seemed
to be a misapprehonsion on the subject.
The Clerk was not creature ofthe Court,
but of the Constitution, as would he found
ny referring tothe9lh sect. ofthe3d article
Each Court was directed to appoint its
own Clerk for term Of seven years
that appointment being made upon the
production OF certificate from the Su.
preme Court in respect to his qJalifca,
ton to filthe office. The Clerks were
removable at any time by the Judges
of the respective Courts, for breaches of
good behavior The appointment, how,
ever. did not admit of a capricious exer-
else of power, which was limited under
the 9th section in the Constitution. Now
was it true that there was in the Court
and inherent power, to be exercised at
pleasure, to remove the Clerkl He
thought not--that power resulting only
where breach of good behavior was
pronounced against him. What vas the
character of the duties he had to performl
They were two.fold--such as were con
nected with the Court as a Court, and
such as did not connect themselves with
the Court at all. In respeett 10 those be,
longing to the first class, the Court had
iurisdiclion-the second relating to sub.
jects over which that Court had no more
than any tribunal in Christen-
dom. There was test in drawing this
line so manifest that "all who run may
read" and determine where the points
of demarcation in respect to each were
to be discerned. In allth duties which
he performed under the first class, as
clerk. proper, the Court had an undoubted
right to order and direct him; if the Clerk
should, underthe 2nd class, asktheirorder
or direction they would tell him to act
upon his own responsibility, they having
no power or jurisdiction over the snbject
matter. To that class of duties belong.
ed the power which the Clerk had to is.
sue marriage license, ferry license, a
pedlar's license--and they might also in.
clude in it the particular duties out of
which the present complaint had arisen. :
Now, the Clerk might make mistakes
or not in the performance of that class
of duties; but these could notin any
effect the jurisdiction of the Court
they would go on "in The even tenor of
their way" dispensing law and justice, as
they understood both, whether there be
one, two, or FIVE representatives in the
Legislature from that county, whether
or not marriage had been celebrated
within the county for ten years-wheth-
or a pedlar had traversed the length and
breadth of the county within the same
period--or whether single man had
been ferlied over the rivers or not. Still
The Court did not hesitate to say that if,
in the performance ofanyone of these du.
lies, the Clerk of the Common Pleas act
ed upon dishonest or corrupt motives,
they should exercise the power, whether
they had the right or not, of removing
him. They should not allow him for
dishonest or corrupt purposes to affix
The seal to pedlar's license and much
more readily would they be inclined to
remove him for any misconduct connect.
ed with the duties that belonged to that
Court