Case Name: In re Application of Ira Bailus
Court: Franklin Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1906-06
Citations: 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 632
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Application of Ira Bailus.
Judges: Sullivan and Dustin, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 19
Pages: 632–632

Head Matter:
PARDONS AND PAROLES.
[Franklin (2nd) Circuit Court,
June, 1906.]
Wilson, Sullivan and Dustin, JJ.
In re Application of Ira Bailus.
1. Meaning oe Term “Period oe Imprisonment.”
The term "period of imprisonment,” as used in Lan. 11197 (B. 7388-8) means the term of the sentence less the time deducted for good conduct.
2. Discharge oe Prisoner by Warden.
The discharge of a prisoner hy the warden of the penitentiary and restoration to citizenship must he in compliance with the statutes governing pardons.
[For other cases in point, see 6 Cyc. Dig., “Pardons and Paroles,” §§ 4-15— Ed.]
[Syllabus approved by the court.]
Ulery, Martín & Webster, for plaintiff.
W. H. Ellis, attorney general. R. J. Mauck and G. H. Jones, for defendant.
Affirmed, without report, Bailus, In re, 74 Ohio St. 452.

Opinion:
WILSON, J.
The term "period of imprisonment" as used in Lan. 11197 (B. 7388-8), means the term of sentence, less the time which, under the rules of the penitentiary, may be deducted for good conduct.
The discharge of a prisoner by the warden of the penitentiary, and the restoration to citizenship by the certificate of the governor, under the provisions of said section, are ministerial acts and, to be effective, must be in compliance with law.
The acts in this case were not in compliance with law and were a nullity. Otherwise these officers could discharge a prisoner at will.-
The original commitment was authority for the retaking of the prisoner.
Judgment affirmed.
Sullivan and Dustin, JJ., concur.