Case Name: Ex parte Henry W. Scott
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1869-12
Citations: 19 Ohio St. 581
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte Henry W. Scott.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 19
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
Ex parte Henry W. Scott.
1. The police court of Omcirmati has jurisdiction to try cases of prosecution for obtaining money or goods by false pretences. DittingTiam v. State, 5 Ohio St. 280, approved.
2. The act of February 1, 1853 (S. & O. 708), giving to parties imprisoned for non-payment of fines the benefit of laws for the relief of insolvent debtors, and authorizing their discharge as such, is not an attempt to place the pardoning power in hands other than those of the governor of the State. It is merely a modification of penalties prescribed for certain offences, and is not in conflict with the constitution.
3. Where the custodian of a party so imprisoned refuses, on request, to tafee him before the commissioner of insolvents, in order to his discharge under the provisions of said act, the more convenient and appropriate remedy is by mandamus, and not by habeas corpus.
Application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Henry W. Scott was convicted, in the police court of Cincinnati, on the 29th of July, 1869, of obtaining money by false pretences, and sentenced to pay a fine of $500, and on default of payment thereof was committed to the workhouse. After he had been so imprisoned for sixty days, he requested the superintendent of the workhouse to take him before the commissioner of insolvents, agreeably to the provisions of the act of February 1st, 1853 (S. & C. 708); which act provides, in substance, that any person so imprisoned for sixty days, for non-payment of a fine, shall, upon his request, be so taken before the commissioner, and be discharged in like manner as an insolvent debtor.
The superintendent refused to comply with this request, on the alleged ground that said act of February 1st,.1853, is unconstitutional, in that it provides for an exercise of pardoning power by an officer other than the governor of the State.
On behalf of the applicant it is claimed that his imprisonment is illegal, not only because of the refusal to take him before the commissioner, but also because the police court, before whom he was tried, had no jurisdiction of the case.
Ben//. G. True and J. B. GonJdin for the applicant:
1. The police court of Cincinnati had no jurisdiction to try and convict upon a charge of “ obtaining money upon false pretences or false representations.” S. & C. 441, 443.
2. The applicant has a right to go before the commissioner of insolvents to take the benefit of the insolvent act, as provided by the 68th section. S. &. C. 708; 2 Ohio, 327; Lougee v. The State, 11 Ohio, 68.
M. F. Wilson, contra,
cited Dillingham v. The State, 5 Ohio St. 280, as settling the question of the jurisdiction of the police court.

Opinion:
By the Court :
That the police court had jurisdiction, was expressly held by this court in Dillingham v. The State, 5 Ohio St. 280, and we see no reason for reversing that decision.
The act of February 1st, 1853, is not an attempt to place the pardoning power in hands other than those of the governor. It is a mere modification of penalties prescribed for certain offences. The act is constitutional, and entitles the applicant to be taken before the commissioner, and to be discharged on compliance with the provisions of the acts for the relief of insolvent debtors. We think, however, that the more convenient and appropriate remedy is by mandamus, and will, therefore, refuse the present application. Should the applicant be re-arrested, after his discharge, as counsel seem to • apprehend he may be, his right to a habeas corpus will then be undeniable.
Writ refused.