Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-03-21
Supreme Court of Ohio.

THURSDAY march III 1893.
John Schafner VS.. the State of Ohio. Mo-
ton for the allowance of a writ of error to the
Common Pleas of Clark county. By the Court.
Held:
l. 1t is not necessary that an Indictment, under
the act Ito provide against the evils resulting
should be indorsed by surety for costs nor
that the fact of its being found "on testimony
sworn and sent to the grand jury by order of
the Court at the request of the Prosecuting At
torney, or the foreman of the grand jury" should
be indorsed thereon.
2. The act to restrain the sale of spirituous
liquors, passed March II, 1851, which immedi-
ately preceded this act, and was repealed BY it,
excepted from its operation sales made ''for
medicinal and pharmaceutical purposes" but
this act makes no such exceptions; and from
this circumstance, and from the fact that the
exception was liable to much practical abuse, it
is presumable that the Legislature intended to
exclude such exception
8. ANY person may lawfully, IN good faith,
give away intoxicating liquors for medicinal or
other purposes, or may lawfully sell them in any
quantity for such purposes to be drank else
where than where sold; but he cannot lawfully
sell them Except such as are specially excepted
by the statute) to be drank lrhere sold, for any
purpose
The administering of liquors, as medicine,
to patient by physician could not properly be
denominated sale.
Motion overruled.
Doe. ex Dem. The incorporated village of
Fulton vs. John Marenfeld In ejectment.-
Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
PECK, J. Held:
l. That dedication of ground for public uses
may be made in Ohio, either under the statute
or according to the rules OF the common law.
2 When valid dedication Of street has been
made in either form, an action may be maintain
ed by the proper municipal corporation to re-
cover the possession from any one who wrong
fully withholds it.
8. That the statutory dedication, under the
laws in force in A D. 1880, operated to trans
fer the estate by way of grant, requiring no as
sent on the part of the public. and to be effect
ed as dedication, the solemnities required by
the statute, as to acknowledgement and record
ing, must be complied with.
4. A defective dedication under the statute,
is evidence, an act IN pGis, of dedication at
common law by the owner.
s. Dedications of land to public uses at COM
mon law in general, operate by way OF estoPPel
and not as grants or transfers Of an interest.
| To constitute valid dedication of a street
| or highway at common law, there must be not
only dedication to public uses by the owner,
but also an acceptance of such dedication by the
public, and these mag be shown, by the acts and
declarations of the parties and the surrounding
circumstances. Judgment affirmed.
| Trad Kelly and others vs.. John Vincent. Rs
served in the District Court of Geauga county.
SuTLIFFr J., delivered the opinion OF the
Court. Held:
/. That taking writ Of execution from the
clerks Office by the judgment creditor or bis at
tOrney and returning the same to the clerk with
out delivery to the sheriff, is not suing out an
execution within the meaning of sec. IOi of the
stat. of March 8, 1881, so as 20 prevent the
| Judgment becoming dormant
2. That the suing out execution expressed BY
the statute requires an actual or constructive
delivery of the writ to the sheriff
Adjourned until Tuesday, March %, 10 A. III.