Legal Opinion

City of Cincinnati v. Woodruff

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 19, 1965No. 9676Published

1Opinion of the CourtHover, J.

The defendant, appellant herein, was found guilty of the crime of larceny by trick (Section 2907.21, Revised Code). The appeal was considered by this court on the docket and journal entries from the court below, a bill of exceptions and the briefs and arguments of counsel.

The facts are not in dispute. The defendant, using the name of Betty Shaw, a false name, returned an item of merchandise to the department store, requested a cash refund of the store’s clerk, received it and cashed it. The refund slip, exhibit “A,” is not in the bill of exceptions, but there is no dispute as to its terms and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. CurtisOhio Court of Appeals · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API