Case Name: FORD v. STATE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-10-27
Citations: 13 Ohio Law Abs. 139
Docket Number: No 2191
Parties: FORD v STATE
Judges: HORNBECK and KUNKLE, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 13
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
FORD v STATE
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co
No 2191.
Decided Oct 27, 1932
O. R. Carson, Columbus, and L. P. Henderson, Columbus, for plaintiff in error.
Donald J. Hoskins, Prosecuting Attorney, Columbus, and Vincent Martin and Eugene Carlin, Ass’t Prosecuting Attorneys, Columbus, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
ALLREAD, J.
We are of the opinion that the judge hearing the case was justified in finding the plaintiff in error guilty and in finding that the punishment was unreasonable and unjustified. Counsel for the plaintiff in error attached an affidavit by the complainant to the brief. This affidavit is, however, no part of the record and can not be considered. The sentence of the court-was that the defendant below pay a fine of $100.00 and costs, and be committed to the Workhouse for a period of six months. We can not resist the conclusion that the sentence so imposed is not irregular or excessive. The judgment is,' therefore, affirmed.
HORNBECK and KUNKLE, JJ, concur.