Cole v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Motion for the allowance of a writ of error to the Police Court of Cincinnati. The plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced in the police court of Ciucinnatifor exhibiting for gain a gaming device in violation of the statute. His application for the allowance of a writ of error having been overruled in the court of common pleas, he makes the present application to obtain the allowance of the writ by this court.
Read the full summary
Motion for the allowance of a writ of error to the Police Court of Cincinnati. The plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced in the police court of Ciucinnatifor exhibiting for gain a gaming device in violation of the statute. His application for the allowance of a writ of error having been overruled in the court of common pleas, he makes the present application to obtain the allowance of the writ by this court. The principal error assigned is that the police court had not jurisdiction of the offense charged.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The jurisdiction of the police judge, ■under section 167 of the municipal code, extends to “ all *227•cases of petit larceny and of inferior offenses which do not require an indictment by a grand jury, committed within the limits of the city or within four miles thereof.”
Prior to the constitution of 1851, petit larceny and offenses of like grade were required to be prosecuted by in•dictment. By section 10, article 1, of the constitution of 1851, the legislature were authorized to dispense with an indictment “in cases of petit larceny and other inferior offenses.” And prior to the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1877
- Opinion No., Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1957