Case Name: STANCHOFF v. WIEGAND
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-10-13
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 779
Docket Number: No. 5934
Parties: STANCHOFF v. WIEGAND
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
No. 824
STANCHOFF v. WIEGAND
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
No. 5934.
Oct. 13, 1924
801. MUNICIPAL LAW — Ordinances imposing imprisonment for violation cannot be made retroactive to include offense committed prior to enactment.
601. HABEAS CORPUS — Writ lies to effect discharge of prisoner illegally confined in city jail.

Opinion:
VICKERY, P. J.
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract
Stanehoff was arrested in Lakewood, fined $500 and without mittimus was sent to Lakewood jail. The ordinance under which he was prosecuted did not provide for imprisonment for violation nor in case the fine Was unpaid or until payment was made. The memorandum merely stated "to be confined in Lakewood jail" was not signed, no time stated for confinement. Later the ordinance was amended providing imprisonment as well as fine, imprisonment if fine is not paid and provision to work out fine.
Stanehoff brought Habeas corpus in '¡the Common Pleas, which writ was refused. Re versing this judgment, the Court of Appeals held:
Attorneys — Hyre & Hyre, for Stanehoff; A. E. Brueekner, for Weigand; all of Cleveland.
1. An ordinance passed after a pi'osecution for commission of an offense cannot be made retroactive to cover an offense before its enactment.
2. Confinement under the ordinance in question is illegal and habeas corpus lies to effect the discharge of one so imprisoned.