State v. Trisler
Ohio Supreme Court
EXCEPTIONS by tbe Prosecuting Attorney, to tbe decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Brown county. At tbe October term, 1891, of the court of common pleas, an indictment was presented by the grand jury against the 'defendant, as follows: “ The State of Ohio, Brown County, ss: “In the court of common pleas of Brown county, Ohio, for the term of October, in the year .of our Eord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, the jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio,…
Read the full summary
EXCEPTIONS by tbe Prosecuting Attorney, to tbe decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Brown county. At tbe October term, 1891, of the court of common pleas, an indictment was presented by the grand jury against the 'defendant, as follows: “ The State of Ohio, Brown County, ss: “In the court of common pleas of Brown county, Ohio, for the term of October, in the year .of our Eord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, the jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio, within and for the body of the county of Brown, impaneled, sworn and charged to inquire of crimés and offenses committed…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
A majority of the court is of opinion that the indictment is faulty in two particulars.
1. The allegations “that said real estate was encumbered by debts and liens, and that all of said real estate was not in the name of said Henry W. Trisler, and that he was not then the owner of all of said real estate” do not amount to substantial denials. For ought that appears, defendant may have been the owner, in his own name, of all save some insignificant parcel of the land, and the liens and debts may have been trifling in amount. Redmond v. The State 35 Ohio St., 81.
2. The allegation…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Keller v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
- State v. . LambethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879