Wightman v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of the county of Washington. The plaintiff in error was indicted, at the August term of the court of common pleas, 1840, in the county of Washington, for retailing spirituous liquors within the limits of the corporation of Marietta, not being licensed to keep a tavern, etc.
Read the full summary
This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of the county of Washington. The plaintiff in error was indicted, at the August term of the court of common pleas, 1840, in the county of Washington, for retailing spirituous liquors within the limits of the corporation of Marietta, not being licensed to keep a tavern, etc. At the October term of said court, 1840, the plaintiff in error appeared and filed his special plea in bar to said indictment, in which he avers that the said spirits were retailed within the limits of the town of Marietta, as incorporated by an act of the general…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
The act incorporating the town of Marietta, 35 Ohio L. L. 249, is by express provision made a public act, and the court are bound ex officio to notice its provisions, and as such it becomes, so far as it is relevant, a part of the special plea, without being set out by the plaintiff in error.
Section 5 of the act contains the general grant of ¿lowers, to wit, to license such coffee, ale, porter, and other public houses oft entertainment as may be necessary for the accommodation of travelers, and -to suspend such licenses on well-founded complaints. The town council are then authorized to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Robinson v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Kabat v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 1906