Battenheiser v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Court of Appeals

Battenheiser v. City of Cincinnati

180 N.E. 209, 41 Ohio App. 303, 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 197, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 313

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 7, 1931

Docket3949

StatusPublished

This text of 180 N.E. 209 (Battenheiser v. City of Cincinnati) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Battenheiser v. City of Cincinnati, 180 N.E. 209, 41 Ohio App. 303, 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 197, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinions

CUSHING, J.

The only argument advanced by counsel for plaintiff in error as ground for reversal, as stated in his brief, is that the oourt erred in permitting witnesses to step from the witness stand to the bench and state in tones which could not be heard statements unknown to plaintiff in error or his counsel. If this were established it would be ground for reversal. Everything done in the court should be in the open and appear in the record.

The record in this case shows that a stenographer was present, a bill of exceptions was prepared, and statements were interlined which were not taken by the stenographer, but were later scratched out. The record fails to sustain counsel’s claim that the witnesses spoke to the court, and fails to disclose what was said to the court which could not be heard by the parties or counsel. Therefore, plaintiff in error’s claim can not be maintained.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court must be affirmed.

HAMILTON, J, concurs in the judgment of affirmance.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CUSHING, J.

The only argument advanced by counsel for plaintiff in error as ground for reversal, as stated in his brief, is that the oourt erred in permitting witnesses to step from the witness stand to the bench and state in tones which could not be heard statements unknown to plaintiff in error or his counsel. If this were established it would be ground for reversal. Everything done in the court should be in the open and appear in the record.

The record in this case shows that a stenographer was present, a bill of exceptions was prepared, and statements were interlined which were not taken by the stenographer, but were later scratched out. The record fails to sustain counsel’s claim that the witnesses spoke to the court, and fails to disclose what was said to the court which could not be heard by the parties or counsel. Therefore, plaintiff in error’s claim can not be maintained.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court must be affirmed.

HAMILTON, J, concurs in the judgment of affirmance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 N.E. 209, 41 Ohio App. 303, 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 197, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battenheiser-v-city-of-cincinnati-ohioctapp-1931.