Bernhardt v. Wise

Hamilton Circuit Court

Bernhardt v. Wise

15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 158, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 195

DecidedJuly 20, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 158 (Bernhardt v. Wise) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernhardt v. Wise, 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 158, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 195 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

We are of the opinion that provisions of the law passed in 1896 (92 O. L., p. 393), which excepted from its provisions bakeries then used in basements and cellars, should be read with the provisions of Section 1012 of the General Code, and the same section of the Revised Statutes.

If we are correct in this, and we limit our judgment to this, the justice of the peace had jurisdiction to issue his warrant and cause the arrest of the plaintiff, and habeas corpus is not the remedy in which plaintiff can try his right, for he has a complete défense, which alone can be shown on the trial, that he does not come under the provisions of the law. Habeas corpus is available only where the court has no jurisdiction to cause the arrest and detention, and is not the form of action in which to try the guilt or innocence of the party.

In this view of the matter the court below did right in dismissing plaintiff’s petition and said judgment should be affirmed.

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

We are of the opinion that provisions of the law passed in 1896 (92 O. L., p. 393), which excepted from its provisions bakeries then used in basements and cellars, should be read with the provisions of Section 1012 of the General Code, and the same section of the Revised Statutes.

If we are correct in this, and we limit our judgment to this, the justice of the peace had jurisdiction to issue his warrant and cause the arrest of the plaintiff, and habeas corpus is not the remedy in which plaintiff can try his right, for he has a complete défense, which alone can be shown on the trial, that he does not come under the provisions of the law. Habeas corpus is available only where the court has no jurisdiction to cause the arrest and detention, and is not the form of action in which to try the guilt or innocence of the party.

In this view of the matter the court below did right in dismissing plaintiff’s petition and said judgment should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 158, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernhardt-v-wise-ohcircthamilton-1912.