Case Name: STATE v. RITZLER et al
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-02-08
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 612
Docket Number: No. 124
Parties: STATE v. RITZLER et al
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 612–612

Head Matter:
No. 639
STATE v. RITZLER et al
Ohio Appeals, Sixth District, Seneca County
No. 124.
Decided Feb. 8, 1923
This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
JUSISDICTION — Prosecution by information under GC. 13049 — (2) Prosecutor may himself make out affidavit.
Attorneys — John L. Lott and Charles E. Derr, for State; Frank T. Dore, Niles & Peters and R. L. DeRan, for Ritzier.

Opinion:
CROW, J.
Epitomized Opinion
An information supported by affidavit was filed by a prosecuting attorney against Ritzier et al for violating 13049 GC in regard to moving picture exhibitions. This information was filed with the Probate Court. The defendants claimed that this, court had no jurisdiction over the prosecution aiw therefore could not try the same. As the Probad Court held for the defendants, plaintiff prosecuted error. In reversing the judgment, the Court of Appeals held:
1: A violation of 13049 GC. may be prosecuted by information in the Probate Court, the term "complaint" contained in said section being generic, and inclusive of the word "Information."
2. The affidavit required by 13443 GC. may be made by the prosecuting attorney who files the information, there being no disqualification of such officer in that respect, either by statutory provision or other public policy.