State ex rel. Otenberger v. Hawes
Ohio Supreme Court
Mandamus. Petition. — “Tho said relator, 'William Otenberger, for petition, says that at the October term, a. d. 1884, of the court of common pleas of Greene county, Ohio, he was tried on an indictment charging him with murder in the second degree, and the jury in said case, at said term, returned a verdict against him of ‘guilty of murder in the second degree as charged in the indictment;’ that the said James E. Hawes is one of the duly elected and qualified judges of the…
Read the full summary
Mandamus. Petition. — “Tho said relator, 'William Otenberger, for petition, says that at the October term, a. d. 1884, of the court of common pleas of Greene county, Ohio, he was tried on an indictment charging him with murder in the second degree, and the jury in said case, at said term, returned a verdict against him of ‘guilty of murder in the second degree as charged in the indictment;’ that the said James E. Hawes is one of the duly elected and qualified judges of the common pleas court of the second judicial district of the state of Ohio, which second judicial district embraces and…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
It appears from the petition that during the trial of relator for murder in the second degree, numerous exceptions were taken by him to the rulings of the court; that he consented to postpone reducing them to writing in order not to delay the trial, and that after the overruling of the motion for a new trial, he further excepted, and consented that his exceptions might subsequently be reduced to writing; that during the term, and on the day of its adjournment, his counsel not being able to complete his bill of exceptions, moved the court to keep the journal open for thirty days, to enable him…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Douglass v. LoomisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1871
- Springer v. PetersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1822