Case Name: CASSIDY v. STATE
Court: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 236
Docket Number: 
Parties: CASSIDY v. STATE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 236–236

Head Matter:
No. 362
CASSIDY v. STATE
Hamilton Common Pleas Court
480. EVIDENCE—The term “home brew” is not of such a character to require the court to take judicial notice of its meaning, and liquor designated as such must be proved to be intoxicating.
661. INTOXICATING LIQUORS —The statute 6175 GC, providing that “when a fluid is poured out when premises are searched, It will be deemed to be prima facie intoxicating liquor”, was enacted under local option laws prohibiting sale of liquor, and does not apply in prosecution under 6212-15 GC, which is part of the law passed under the constitutional amendment.
Attorneys—Paul V. Connolly for Cassidy; Allen C. Roudebush for State; both of Cincinnati.

Opinion:
DARBY, J.
Charles Cassidy was convicted in the Mayor's Court of the village of North College Hill and fined on an affidavit charging him with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors. Cas-sidy appealed the case to the Common Pleas and two questions were presented for consideration.
First: Did the Mayor have jurisdiction to try Cassidy?
Second: Did the evidence sustain the charge ?
The Common Pleas Court held:
1. The office of mayor is a legal office and it cannot be attacked by motions to dismiss or to quash, or by demurrer to an affidavit in a prosecution charging unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.
2. The evidence is, that when the officers approached the house, Cassidy broke the bottle of so-called "home brew". The court will not take judicial notice of its meaning and evidence will be necessary to prove the "home brew" was intoxicating.
3. Claim of the State that 6175 GC applies is not sufficient. 6175 GC was not enacted under the constitutional amendment, as was 6212-15 GC, which prohibits manufacture and sale of liquor, etc., and has no application to this' case.
4. Cassidy should not have been convicted because he broke a bottle, which gave rise to an unfavorable presumption against him. Judgment reversed and case remanded.