The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-01-13

and Mr.. Clark by which Mr. Clark
traded property in Nelsonville for the
plant of the Milholland Brick COM
pany. Clark claimed Reber had mis-
represented the value of the plant
and the jury gave Clark a verdict for
$S,325. Reber carried the case to
the circuit court on error. The court
found that the court below had erred
in it's charge to the jury in not stating
the issues in the case in a clear and
concise manner and in reading all OF
the pleadings to the jury. The court
also had some uncomplimentary
things to say regarding the pleadings
in the case, because of their volume
and indistnctness. The case was re-
luctantly remanded for new trial, the
court commenting upon the cost of
trying such a case.
Then came the opinion in the John
| G. Seits case mentioned above, in
which the court scored Seits for pros
tituting his home. One question at
point was the necessity for the seal
of the mayor being placed upon the
affidavit and the warrant. A defect in
the AFFIDAVIT was also recognized by
the court, but in view of the nature
of the violation and the fact that
Seits had offered no defense. the court
did not feel inclined to stretch the
intent of the law in favor of such
violator. The finding of the mayor
| and the common pleas court was sus-
tained and the application to file a
| petition in error was denied.
In the case of Charles II. Halsey
| against the Board of Commissioners
| Of the Brooks Free Turnpike road and
others, the petition was dismissed
| The plaintiff set up the claim that the
| pike commissioners were without
| Jurisdiction because the hearing be-
| fore the county commissioners was
not regular, also that the points of
termini were not clearly defined. The
claim was that the hearing on the
| petition was set for June "a and on
that day 1t was found that proper no
tice had not been given and the hear
ing was adjourned until July 81 and
another publication was made. Ac-
| lion was taken at that time upon the
original petition and this was held to
be irregular. The court took a diff
| ferent view of the proposition. hold
| ng that the action of the county COM
| nissioners was regular The court
| also held that the points of termini
were clearly enough defined.
In deciding the case of David
| Vasham against the state OF Ohio,
| fudge Donnelly set down a few rules
| which hunters and fishermen would
| 10 well to remember. In this case
Washam was searched and two pints
| Of whisky were found upon his per-
| 'on. Washam claimed that he and
n friend were going hunting on the
| next day and he had the whisky for
| their use while in quest of game.
| Judge Donnelly remarked that in Ma
| ion county IL seemed to be quite the
| proper thing to take whisky on hunt
| ing trips but that he considered two
| )ints an excessive amount. ut would
| probably be all right to have that
| amount along on a fishing trip TO
| the waters of the Maumee, but not
on a hunting trip in Marion county.
| Judge Donnely then delivered his re-
marks on the enforcement of law, as
| told in the first paragraph The right
to file petition in error was refused
and Washam will have to pay his
fine.
| hdlner IL peculluT tnlHB occurred IN
the two cases of George Morrison and
On the w. p. Fetter case. which were
all decided in the same Opinion for
the reason that the evidence in the
three cases was all the same. Nor
rison was arrested on two charges,
one for keeping a. place and the other
for selling liquor. Fetter was arrest
ed for keeping a place. In the may
or's court all We're convicted and
fined. The cases were carried to the
common pleas court and the case
against Fetter was sustained while
the one against Morrison for selling
liquor was reversed and the one
charging him with keeping place
was sustained. The circuit court took
just the opposite view of the cases
against Morrison. 1t reversed the
common pleas court and sustained the
mayor In the case charging him with
selling and reversed both the common
pleas court and the mayor In the case
charging him With keeping. a place.
The circuit court held that Fetter and
Morrison could not both be convicted
OF the Aome offense by the same evil