Case Name: City of Dayton, Appellee, v. Miller, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1951-01-31
Citations: 154 Ohio St. 500
Docket Number: No. 32248
Parties: City of Dayton, Appellee, v. Miller, Appellant.
Judges: Weyoandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 154
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
City of Dayton, Appellee, v. Miller, Appellant.
(No. 32248
Decided January 31, 1951.)
Mr. Herbert S. Beane, city attorney, Mr. Maurice A. Russell, city prosecutor, and Mr. Joseph P. Huffy, for appellee.
Mr. A. K. Meek, for appellant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Appellant stresses the claim that the assault and battery ordinance of the city of Dayton, under which he was prosecuted, is invalid for the reason that municipal corporations have authority, under Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution, to enact only "local police regulations," whereas the ordinance in question is not such a regulation but is a general police regulation prescribing punishment for a crime.
Municipal corporations of this state have authority to define, by ordinance, the offense of assault and battery and to prescribe punishment therefor. The ordinance in question is a valid enactment. Greenburg v. City of Cleveland, 98 Ohio St., 282, 120 N. E., 829; Village of Struthers v. Sokol, 108 Ohio St., 263, 140 N. E., 519.
There being no prejudicial error appearing on the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Weyoandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.