The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-12-01
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES.
City Clerk ROhner not i'm COn-
tempt.

CITY CAefA HOhner NOT lm C014N
tempt.
Esquires Dossman and Rowkampe,t tha
Justices Of the Peace before whom tlss
evidence is being taken to be used ieD
fore the Common Pleas Courts in the
contested election cases, this morning
delivered their opinions as to the mai
ter OF the contempt against Richard Z.
Rohner, City Clerk, as follows.
SQUIRE +. A DOSsMAN
said in the above case, as well as Others
in which the same ques ions are in
volved, the contestant has applied 10
the Justice and preferred charges
against the said Richard q. Rohner,
City Clerk OF Cincinnati, as tor a e0Rs
tempt in his refusal to diligently aud
carefully search for, examine and in
quire alter aud bring with him and pro.
ducs The ballots as he received thela
from the Judge Of the Second Precinct
of the First Ward OF said city OF Cha.
cinnati, as cast on the 10tn day OF Or
tober, 1876, for county anu State Offices.
DESTROYS Of doing my dr.y under ths
statute, have sought all the light Il
could get on tle subject, and after cara
lul consideration have come TO the COR
clusion that the statute regulating thB
rlSe0Hb plUCSOuluS7 SlNoo OuO VupbiSSp
no power to enforce the production Of
the ballots, and that the only forum haFs
ing this power is the District Court, Su-
preme Court, or the General Assembly
All the power given Us i'll taking the
depositioDs herein is given by the 4Oth
Section OF the Election Laws. Swan and
Critchfield, Volume l, page $40, aud
which is to issue subpeLaS, anu there
after to hear and certify all the tess
mony, sc.
We have no authority to send for pA-
pers or to enforce their production. II
has been decided, as 1 learn by Judga
| Cox in the case Of Warrin gton VS.. Peck,
| that only a competent Court can inter-
iere with the custody OF the ballot-boxs9
and ballots.
Judgment, acting under the provision oil
| The act of May 3, 1857, the two Justiuss
are not invested with any judicia
power.
1t is true we can issue suDp@naS and
enforce the personal attendance of ina
| witness, his respectful behavior, ami
compel him to answer all proper QueS$
tions, but we have no power under thG
statute to 60 further, If the Legislature
has not seen fit to invest US with the
requisite power we can not assume a
Jurisdiction not conferred. l must
| therefore, decline to punish the witness
for a contempt in refusing to produce tins
said ballots. .. .
| SQUIRE ROWEKAMPE
said: l hold that we have the power
| to issue subLe0as for Witnesses
aud coerce their attendance in
| causes or matter pending before LIZ,
OF i'll the taking of deposiiions, and 10
produce all OF any paper that may be IN
| their possession bearing upon the GaSsts
| The general power 10 issue subp@1as
gives the power to enforce the attends
c9 and production of The ballots thereY
in called for. Any other ruling WOULD
place it in the power of the witness to
produce or withhold material evidence
at his pleasure. The penalty in u nOB-
compliance is fine, and not imprisoa-
| ment.
December 1, 1875 parties again ap-
peared, whereupon the Justices diSa&
greed in reference to the matter. Oaa
held that we had no power or jurisdiu-
ton to enforce the production OF the ball
lots called for in the subpala; the 9th.
er Justice held that we had the power
TO have the ballots produced according
to the command OF the subj eAa, that the
penalty OF such non-production was q
fine and not Imprisonment, &c.
The attachment was therefore dis
missed, and Richard q. Rohner dis
| charged,