The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-01-12
LA W REPORT.
COMMON PLEAS.

| ET p01te JOuepn an Hagen. This was
an application for leave to file petition
in error 10 the Probate Court. Van Ha
gen, who made application before the
Probate Court for Il writ of habedS cor
! pas, was in confinement in the Work.
house under sentence OF the Police
Court. 1t appeared that he had been
convicted of petty larceny, and upon
| such conviction was sentenced for six
months. He had served there for more
than thirty days, and then made the ap-
plicatiDn for his discharge. After hear
ing in the Probate Court the writ was
dismissed, and Van Hagen remanded.
This action of the Probate Court was
claimed to be erroneous. Writ refused.
Mathers, Butler II Co. V. The City.
This case game up on motion for leave
to file Il petition in error 10 reverse the
sentence of the Police Court in 1ining
the applicants $40 for removing dead
hogs through the streets of the city with
out Il permit.
The motion was argued ON behalf of
the applicants by +. NJ. johnson. Mr..
johnson claimed that the refusal of the
Mayor to grant the plaintiffs "a permit TO
carry away their dead hogs was virtu-
ally creating monopoly, and thereby
abridging thee rights of the citizens,
which rights could not be abridged by an
ordinance under the guise of police
regulation. All ordinances must be
equal with respect to the duties and bur-
dens imposed upon citizens; that so long
as no wrong was inflicted upon citizens,
OF nothing deleterious was done to the
public health, the Mayor could not
grant the permit to one party and retuso
it to another. The carcasses had a COM
mercial value, and were therefore not
otfal in the sense OF the ordinance. The
plaintiffs claimed that the Mayor WAS
wilfully violating the rights of citizens
in attempting 10 enforce the ordinance.
They proposed TO show that the Mayor
said he would not grant u permit to anv
one except George Thompson, because
the city had contract with him. Mr..
Johnson stated that IT was but justice to
the Mayor to say that Individually the
Mayor was perfectly willing TO grant the
permit, but, under the advice of tue City
Solicitor that he would involve the city
in lawsuit with Thompson ON the
ground of a refusal to carry out his con-
tract, and in order TO keep his skirts
clear, he would refuse to grant permits
to every one except Thompson.
Laid over until to-day.
The City for the use ., j. NJ. Gardner
V. Charles Robson ct al. This case came
up on u motion to amend the petition so
as to make the Cincinnati Exposition
Park Association party defendant, and
motion by tne Association Itself to be-
come IL party defendant, with leave to
file IA cross-petition against the plair tiffs
and defendants. Referred.
Il. Nj. Spansenburg v. Jacob and Fred
ericka Schroeder. This was an action
brought to recover $1Ol as attorneys
fees rendered Fire dericka Shredder in
divorce suit which she commenced
against her husband and co-defchdant.
1t appeared that after the plaintiff had
drawn the petition, prepared the papers
and had examined the title OF the hus-
bands estate, with view to getting ali
mony, The wife returned to her husband
and the suit was dismissed, and this
suit WAS commenced for fees.
The Court held that neither the hus-
band nor wife was liable. The wife WAS
not, ,because-though she might charge
ner separate estate with debts contract
ed on the faith of it--it did not appear
that the wife owned amy separate estate,
and the services of the plaintiff We're in
fact undertaken on the iaith of the nus.
bands property. The husband was not
liable. He was bounl tor necessarles
furnished his wife, and even, according
to some authorities, 1or counsel ices in
a case instituted by the wife against
him. No suit here was necessary. The
W, fe agreed to reconcile her differences
and return to her husband, u choice
which oughtnot to be regretted.