Case Name: Anna M. Foley v. Chas. E. Roth, Treas., et al.
Court: Hamilton Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1910-07-09
Citations: 23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 79
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anna M. Foley v. Chas. E. Roth, Treas., et al.
Judges: Giffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 23
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
July 9, 1910.]
Giffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Anna M. Foley v. Chas. E. Roth, Treas., et al.
Assistant Dairy and Food Inspectors not Required to Procure Violation of Liquor Laws for Purpose of Assessing Dow Tax.
The provision of Gen. Code 6087 for the appointment by the dairy and food commission of assistant commissioners and inspectors for the purpose of determining names of persons liable to the Dow law assessment not now on the tax duplicate, contemplates an official inspection for the purpose of enforcing the law; but there is no authority for procuring a violation of the law in order that the tax may be levied, and the evidence of sales under such circumstances will be received with much caution, and the property of an innocent owner will.not be subject to a lien upon such testimony where contradicted.
Appeal from common pleas.
Gideon C. Wilson, for plaintiff.'
Hunt, Bettman & M err ell, for defendant.

Opinion:
GIFFEN, P. J.
The provision of Gen. Code 6087, that "the assistant commissioners and inspectors appointed by the dairy and food commissioners * # * shall determine from information furnished by the auditor of state, or by personal visitation or otherwise, the names of all persons liable to such assessments," contemplates an official inspection and investigation for the purpose of enforcing the law, and does not authorize a procurement of a violation of the law in order that the assessment may be levied. The evidence thus obtained will, like the testimony of hired detectives, be received with caution and carefully scrutinized. They were unable at the trial to identify the two women as the occupants of the house at the time of the alleged sales, although they were in fact such occupants, and testified that no sales of beer were made on the premises. We are of the opinion that the property of an entirely innocent owner ought not to be subject to a lien upon such evidence contradicted as it is by the positive testimony offered by plaintiff.
An injunction, will be granted as prayed for.
Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.