State Ex Rel. Foxall v. Cossairt

By the Court.

We agree with the statement of relator in his brief:

“The main issue involved in this case is as to whether or not the charge that relator had habitually contracted debts which he was either unable or unwilling to pay, could or does of itself constitute a charge of dishonesty.”

However, we do not agree with the further state ment in the brief that ‘ ‘ The Court of Appeals held that it did not.” The court speaks only by its journal and the reason for the reversal given in the journal entry or mandate is: “ * * * and the judgment of the said Court of Common Pleas is reversed, for…