The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1855-01-31

FIXTURE of estete.n (Art. l, sec. I2.)-
Hence there is no power to deprive a
man of the use of his property, unless it
be necessary in order to abate an exist.
i1tg nuisance.
IL. The bidder is not to be directed
to any officer. It lie not an order to be
executed by an officer. It is an order
to the person convicted, obedience to
which may be enforced, if the nuisance
be continued, by attachment for con-
tempt of Court. The order being made,
if the convict cease to keep a house of
public resort, Of the character named,
or referred to in the 4th section, he need
give no bond, and having SO ceased, no
attachment can properly be issued
against him. But if he desire to con-
tinue keeping such housee of public re
sort. he must, in order to avoid an at
tachment, give bond. He has his cleo
ton, to quit keeping a house of public
resort, or 10 give bond and keep it with
out violating the law.
13. The following information is suf-
fcient in law.
The STATE OF ONO, CLERMoNT CoUN-
TY, IS. Probate Court, May term, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and fifty-four: John johnson,
Prosecuting Attorney Of the State of
Ohio, for the said county of Clermont,
now here in said Probate Court, in and
for said county, in the name and by the
authority and on behalf of the said State
of Ohio information makes, that on the I'd
day of May, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and f~ftyfour, and
from that day until the commencement
of proceedings herein, to wit: on the
twenty-third day of May, in the year
aforesaid, at the said county of Clecmoht,
in the said State of Ohio, one Frederick
| Miller was, and has been unlawfully the
keeper of a room of public resort, where
intoxicating liquors were and have been
then and there sold by said Frederick
Miller, in violation of an act of the Gen
eral Assembly of the State of Ohio, en-
| titled AN Act to provide against the
evils resulting from the sale of ~intoxica-
ting liquors in the State of Ohio" and
passed by said General Assembly on the
first day of May, in the year aforesaid,
contrary to the form of the statute in
such casemade and provided, and against
the peace and dignity of the State of
Ohio.
JOHN JOHNSON,
Prosecuting Atty of ClermoDt County.
IA. A prosecution under this act can
not be commenced in the Probate Court.
It must DO commenced before a Justice
of the Peace or Major. But no very
strict conformity between the informa-
ton and the origina! complaint is neces-
sary. IF the charge is substantially the
same in both, there is, no room to quash
the information on the ground of vari-
ance. The proper rule upon this point
has already been stated at this term, in
Gates and Goodno v. The State.
MI tieL record is not a proper repli-
cation to the plea of former conviction
prescribed in the Probate Code. For
there is no prefeTt of a record in the
plea. The proper replication is a gen.
Grad denial of the allegations of the plea T;
and the issue thus made up is to be tried
By the jury e~mpanneled in the cause.
MOTION DOCKET.
The following cases are marked CUB
mitted:
IA. Robertson ". The State.
Is. Painter v. The State
76. State v. Rider.
TT. Atlantic and Great Western
Taiiroad Company v. Campbell
70. Fremont and Indiana Railroad
Company ". Commissioners of Hancock
county.
so. Cleveland and Painesville Rail
road Company v. Mitchell.
GENER AT. DOCKET
$50. Francis Simpson v. Hazlett ct
al. was submitted by compliments
counsel