Case Name: INDUSTRIAL COMMISS. v. HESSON
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-12-15
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 85
Docket Number: No. 144
Parties: INDUSTRIAL COMMISS. v. HESSON
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 85–85

Head Matter:
No. 142
INDUSTRIAL COMMISS. v. HESSON
Ohio Appeals, 5th Dist., Ashland Co.
No. 144.
Decided Dec. 15, 1924.
465. ERROR.—Discretion for the exercise of which reversal is proper is limited to abuse in exercise.
Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
Attorneys—R. R. Zurmehly, Columbus counsel for Commission; J. L. Mason and M. V. Semple, Ashland, for Hesson.

Opinion:
HOUCK, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Action by Hesson for compensation from the state insurance fund on account of injuries to her husband resulting in his death. The application was denied and appealed to the common pleas court and after trial verdict for the plaintiff of $5350. Error is prosecuted for reversal on the grounds of an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in permitting the ease to be tried at the time and on the day it was disposed of and for failure of proof necessary to sustain the claim of the plaintiff. First claim to error is based on the fact that R. R. Zur-mehly, a representative of the attorney-general's office, could not be present at the trial. The record discloses that the Industrial Commission was represented at the trial by the prosecuting attorney of Ashland county and H. A. Mykrantz. In affirming judgment the appeals court held:
1. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in insisting on the trial of the case.
2. An examination of the testimony discloses that there was some evidence offered to sustain each and all of the material and necessary elements to warrant a recovery and there is no prejudicial error in the record.