Case Name: PEST v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-05-28
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 532
Docket Number: No. 9055
Parties: PEST v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD.
Judges: (Vickery and Levine, JJ., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
PEST v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD.
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 9055.
Decided May 28, 1928.
L. J. Pridgson, Cleveland, for Pest.
W. L. Davis, Cleveland, for City of Lakewood.

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, PJ.
We do not think that the initial act above set forth invalidated the proceedings which subsequently followed and which resulted in a fine of $300.00 and costs, the sentence which was pronounced at the January Term of the Criminal Branch of the Municipal Court of Lakewood, and under the warrant and affidavit, alluded to above.
Therefore, we proceed to examine the record as to whether there was credible evidence under the rules of criminal law, to warrant the conviction, and adhering to the authorities laid down by the Supreme Court that the reviewing court may not reverse the judgment where the trial court has submitted to it credible evidence under the rules of criminal law, which would be sufficient to base a conviction in a criminal case, beyond the existence of a reasonable doubt, we hold that under the record there could be no hypothesis of innocence.
Breeze v. State 12 O.S. 146, Remington v. Harrington 8. Ohio 507; Higgins v. Rocher, 22 C.C. 112, 12 C.D. 220; Painesville Utopia Theater Co. v. Lautermilch, Ohio Law Bulletin and Rep. March 5, 1928, 125. These decisions apply to criminal cases as well as civil cases, providing the evidence is of such a character that applying the rules of the criminal law there is on the face of the record, a legal warrant for conviction.
Holding these views the judgment of the lower sourt is hereby affirmed.
(Vickery and Levine, JJ., concur.)