Case Name: The State of Ohio v. John H. Morton
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1871-12
Citations: 21 Ohio St. 669
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Ohio v. John H. Morton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 21
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio v. John H. Morton.
Section XV of the act of April 12, 1858, “ to establish the independent treasury of the State of Ohio/' defining what shall be deemed in law an embezzlement of public money (S. & 0.1610), applies to township treasurers.
On bill of exceptions taken, under the statute, in the court of common pleas of Logan county.
At the March term, 1871, of the common pleas, Morton was indicted for embezzlement. The indictment is founded on sec. XY of the act of April 12, 1858, “ to establish the-independent treasury of the State of Ohio.” S. & C. 1610. The indictment avers that on the 17th October, 1870, Morton was treasurer of Richland township, in Logan county, charged, as such officer, with the collection, receipt, safekeeping, transfer and disbursement of the public money of the township, and that he embezzled and converted to his-own use certain money belonging to the township, that came to his hands as such treasurer.
On motion of the accused the common pleas .quashed the indictment, an the ground that there is no law authorizing such an indictment, and that the matters charged do not constitute a crime under any statute of this State. The State, on bill of exceptions, seeks to review this ruling of the common pleas.
F. B. Pond, attorney general, and Duncan Dow, prosecuting attorney, for the State.
William Lawrence and Joseph H. Lawrence for Morton,
argued that the act of April 12th, 1858, does not apply to-a township treasurer, but only to State and county treasurers; and claimed that this position is sustained (1) by the title of the act, (2) by the terms of the act, (3) by the rule noscitur a sodis (Broom’s Legal Maxims, 523, 5; S. & S» 704; S. & C. 1602; Sedgwick on Stat. 324-390, (4) township treasurers are not within the purview of the act.

Opinion:
Bv the Court :
The indictment in this case is based upon section XY of the act of April 12, 1858, "to establish the independent treasury of the State of Ohio." S. & C. 1610. That section provides " That if any officer or other person charged with the collection, receipt, safe keeping, transfer or disbursement of the public money, or and part thereof, belonging to the State, or to any county, or township, or organized city or village in this State, shall convert to his own use any portion of the public money received, controlled or held by him for safe keeping, transfer or disbursement, every such act shall be deemed and held in law to be an embezzlement of so much of the said moneys # * as shall be thus converted, used," &c. We are of opinion that this provision embraces a township treasurer; and when the section is read, as it should be, in connection with section XX of the act of April 12, 1858, " to provide for the better regulation of the receipt, disbursement and safe keeping of the public revenue," (S. & C. 1602) making it the duty of the prosecuting attorney "to prosecute all violations of this act or the act to establish the independent treasury of the State of Ohio * # * by the treasurer of the county or the treasurer of any township in the county," there would seem to be no doubt but that the legislature intended that section XY of the latter act should embrace township treasurers.
It follows, therefore, that the common pleas erred in iffi holdings.