Wilhelm v. Cleveland city

It is quite apparent from a reading of the record that plaintiff in error did not violate the ordinance. He had parked his car on E. 2nd St., for the purpose of making a delivery of merchandise and was quite within the provisions of the ordinance and he should have been discharged on that ground.

It also appears from the record that the court erroneously dismissed or nolled, over the objection of defendant, a proceeding in which an offense was charged against Wilhelm, which was the same charge upon which he was later tried. The third arrest and trial placed Mr. Wilhelm in jeopardy the second…