State v. Weekly
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.
Defendant makes only one contention in this court, viz., that he was entitled to a" directed verdict of acquittal, pursuant to his motions therefor, because it was not shown that he had committed any statutory offense.
In support of such claim the argument is made that at common law dogs were not regarded as property the stealing of which constituted an offense; that the only manner in which dogs may be raised to the dignity of personal property subject to larceny in Ohio is by listing and valuing them for taxation and paying the tax if due as provided by Section 5837, General Code; and that,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mullaly v. . People of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Harrington v. MilesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Hamby v. SamsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Commonwealth v. HazelwoodCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- Commonwealth v. FlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.