Charles Kuhl Artificial Stone Co. v. Mack
This text of 17 Ohio C.C. 663 (Charles Kuhl Artificial Stone Co. v. Mack) 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.
Opinion
The defendant in error recovered a judgment for $385, damages for malicious prosecution on a oharge of taking a small quantity of the Kuhl Company’s material in completing a cement sidewalk contract, a line of work in which the Kuhl Company and Mack were competitors. Error was claimed in the admission of testimony as to a general custom prevailing among contractors of helping themselves to each other’s material when a small quantity was needed to complete a job.
The reviewing court holds that while suoh a custom is unreasonable as a-rule of property, and therefore not binding, yet it was competent for the purpose for which it was evidently introduced — 'that is, as tending to prove a lack of criminal intent.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 Ohio C.C. 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-kuhl-artificial-stone-co-v-mack-ohcircthamilton-1899.