Davis v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county. On the thirtieth day of August, a. d. 1873, an information was filed in the police court of the city of Cincinnati, by the prosecuting attorney of that -court, against C. L. Davis, A. E. Davis, and James Davis, charging that on the twenty-sixth day of August, a. d. 1873, at the city of Cincinnati, and within the jurisdiction of that court, C. L. Davis, A. E. Davis, and James Davis did unlawfully keep and exhibit for gain…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county. On the thirtieth day of August, a. d. 1873, an information was filed in the police court of the city of Cincinnati, by the prosecuting attorney of that -court, against C. L. Davis, A. E. Davis, and James Davis, charging that on the twenty-sixth day of August, a. d. 1873, at the city of Cincinnati, and within the jurisdiction of that court, C. L. Davis, A. E. Davis, and James Davis did unlawfully keep and exhibit for gain certain gaming device, commonly known as “ keno,” in the city of Cincinnati, contrary to the form of the statute, etc.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ashburn, J. I.
Since the writ of error was allowed in this case, the question as to the jurisdiction of police courts over offenses of the grade charged in the information has *26been settled in favor of tlieir jurisdiction. In Cole v. The State, 29 Ohio St. 226, it is held that “ the jurisdiction conferred on police courts by section 167 of the municipal code extends to petit larceny, and all such other inferior offenses as are not required, by section 10, article 1 of the constitution to be prosecuted by indictment.” This ruling followed.
II. Was there error in overruling the demurrer?
To answer…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cole v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1876