Case Name: State ex rel. v. John B. Miles, Clerk
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1917-05-17
Citations: 30 Ohio C.C. Dec. 227
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. v. John B. Miles, Clerk.
Judges: KunMe, Allread and Feraeding, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 30
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
JURY — MILITIA.
[Franklin (2nd) Court of Appeals,
May 17, 1917.]
Kunkle, Allread and Ferneding, JJ.
State ex rel. v. John B. Miles, Clerk.
Exempting Contributory Members of National Guard from Jury Service, Constitutional.
Section 5211 G. C., exempting from jury service, contributing members of the Ohio National Guard, is constitutional.
Turney, Olds & Sipe and Simeon Nash, for plaintiff.
Robert P. Duncan, for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee CuRiam.
This case is submitted to this court upon a demurrer to the petition of the plaintiffs.
The action involves the constitutionality of the provisions of See. 5211 G. C. providing that contributing members of the Ohio National Guard shall be exempt from service as jurors.
We have carefully considered the authorities cited in . the Very exhaustive briefs which have been filed by counsel.
We shall not undertake to discuss in detail the authorities so cited but will merely announce the conclusion at which we have arrived after a consideration of such authorities. We shall adopt this course for the reason that this case can and doubtless will, be taken to the Supreme Court where it can be authoritatively reported.
A former act embodying some of the features of the act under consideration was before our Supreme Court in- the case 'of Hamann v. Heekin, 88 Ohio St. 207 [102 N. E. 730], wherein such former act was held unconstitutional.
We have carefully examined the present act in connection with the case above referred to and are of opinion that the present act does not come within any of the objections made by the Supreme Court to the former act nor do we think it conflicts with any provision or limitation of the constitution.
We appreciate the suggestion of counsel for defendant as to the wisdom of the exemptions from jury duty provided in this act, but that is a question for consideration by the legislature rather than by the courts.
Demurrer overruled.
KunMe, Allread and Feraeding, JJ., concur.