City of Cincinnati v. Ewing

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Cincinnati v. Ewing

214 N.E.2d 835, 5 Ohio App. 2d 253, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 394, 1965 Ohio App. LEXIS 480

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 1965

Docket9783

StatusPublished

This text of 214 N.E.2d 835 (City of Cincinnati v. Ewing) 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

City of Cincinnati v. Ewing, 214 N.E.2d 835, 5 Ohio App. 2d 253, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 394, 1965 Ohio App. LEXIS 480 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This matter came on as an appeal as of right from appellant’s conviction in the Municipal Court of Cincinnati of the offense of larceny by trick of goods in an amount *254 less than sixty dollars, the goods consisting of a so-called ‘ ‘ samsonite wardrobe.” Possession of this merchandise was obtained by the false representation on the part of a purchaser that she was one Mrs. Everett Cook, the holder of a credit card entitling Mrs. Everett Cook to purchase merchandise at the particular store.

The matter was heard upon the transcript of the proceedings in the lower court, including the docket and journal entries and the testimony, the briefs of counsel and the argument of appellee, appellant having waived oral argument of the case. Trial was had to the judge only — a jury having been waived. Appellant was found guilty as charged.

The record is clear that the merchant was deprived of the possession of his goods by the false representation on the part of some person of his right to use the card, which representation becomes obviously fraudulent when it appears that the name of a proper holder of the card is wrongfully signed to the charge slip. These circumstances having been established in the evidence, the admission against the interest of the defendant to police officers that she was the one who perpetrated the transaction became admissible in the evidence.

Under the circumstances, the trial judge correctly analyzed the evidence, and applied to it the precise provisions of the criminal statute by required and established rules of evidence and trial procedure.

• The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Hildebbant, P. J., Long and Hover, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This matter came on as an appeal as of right from appellant’s conviction in the Municipal Court of Cincinnati of the offense of larceny by trick of goods in an amount *254 less than sixty dollars, the goods consisting of a so-called ‘ ‘ samsonite wardrobe.” Possession of this merchandise was obtained by the false representation on the part of a purchaser that she was one Mrs. Everett Cook, the holder of a credit card entitling Mrs. Everett Cook to purchase merchandise at the particular store.

The matter was heard upon the transcript of the proceedings in the lower court, including the docket and journal entries and the testimony, the briefs of counsel and the argument of appellee, appellant having waived oral argument of the case. Trial was had to the judge only — a jury having been waived. Appellant was found guilty as charged.

The record is clear that the merchant was deprived of the possession of his goods by the false representation on the part of some person of his right to use the card, which representation becomes obviously fraudulent when it appears that the name of a proper holder of the card is wrongfully signed to the charge slip. These circumstances having been established in the evidence, the admission against the interest of the defendant to police officers that she was the one who perpetrated the transaction became admissible in the evidence.

Under the circumstances, the trial judge correctly analyzed the evidence, and applied to it the precise provisions of the criminal statute by required and established rules of evidence and trial procedure.

• The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Hildebbant, P. J., Long and Hover, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 N.E.2d 835, 5 Ohio App. 2d 253, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 394, 1965 Ohio App. LEXIS 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cincinnati-v-ewing-ohioctapp-1965.