Case Name: Joseph Noonan v. State of Ohio
Court: Cuyahoga County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1908-02-17
Citations: 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Noonan v. State of Ohio.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 16
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PROVIDE FOR. A CHILD.
Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.
Joseph Noonan v. State of Ohio.
Decided, February 17, 1908.
Failure to Provide For Children — Tenue.
In order to convict for failure to furnish necessary and proper food, clothing and shelter for a child, the state must show that the offense was committed within the county where the trial was had.
Philip E. Hintz, 'for plaintiff in error.
Frank E. Stevens, contra.

Opinion:
Winch, J.; Henry, J., and Marvin, J.,
concur.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the -police court of the city of Cleveland of an offense commonly known as neglecting children, the punishment for which is provided by Section 6984a, Revised Statutes. His conviction wás affirmed by the common pleas court.
The affidavit filed in the case alleges that the offense was committed "on or about the 17th day of August, A. D. 1906 (the date of the affidavit), and from the 14th day of January, A. D. 1905' (the date of the child's birth), until said 17th day of August, A. E. 1906, at said city and county."
The statute requires the state to show that the accused "wilfully, unlawfully or negligently fails to furnish necessary and proper food, clothing, or shelter for such child."
The bill of exceptions shows that the child was born in Cleveland, but later taken by its mother to her parents "on a farm" where it has since remained, cared for by them, with some little help from the mother. The child is well taken care of, but plaintiff in error has never contributed to its support.
Where the farm is, is not shown. It does not appear that it is even in the state of Ohio or the United States. It may be in Canada, for aught the record shows, and on that farm the child has been ever since its mother took it there, about February, 1906,
It was further developed upon cross-examination of the mother that when she first asked the accused to give her something for the support of the child, it, the child, was with her parents.
In this state of the record we are compelled to say that the state failed to show that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the police court of the city of Cleveland and for that reason, the judgment not being sustained by sufficient evidence, the judgments of the common pleas court and the said police court are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.