City of Cleveland v. Nagle

Ohio Supreme Court

City of Cleveland v. Nagle

176 N.E. 886, 124 Ohio St. 59, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 59, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 349, 1931 Ohio LEXIS 290

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1931

Docket22661

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 N.E. 886 (City of Cleveland v. Nagle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Cleveland v. Nagle, 176 N.E. 886, 124 Ohio St. 59, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 59, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 349, 1931 Ohio LEXIS 290 (Ohio 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

*60 By the Court.

Joseph Nagle was convicted in the municipal court of Cleveland on a charge of unlawful possession of liquor, contrary to the provisions of an ordinance of that city. On proceedings in error that judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals by a majority decision (one of the judges dissenting) upon the ground that “there is no evidence to show trafficking in liquor.”

The record discloses that police officers went to the place of residence of the defendant after numerous complaints had been made that he was harboring girls and women; that upon inquiry defendant denied that there was any ground for such complaint, but promptly informed the officers that he had liquor in his basement; that thereupon he conducted the officers to the basement, where there was a room about eighteen by twenty-two feet, with tables and chairs; that on one side of the room there was a bar and two barrels of beer tapped and ready for service; and that there were also in the room a five-gallon can containing about three gallons of whisky, three other jugs about half full, a separate pint bottle of whisky, many empty whisky bottles, together with beer glasses, whisky glasses, pretzels and all kinds of soft drinks. It was described by the officers as a “regular bar outfit.” The defendant admitted ownership of the establishment and of the beer and liquor, and also admitted its intoxicating character.

Upon such state of facts the conviction was supported by Ciano v. State, 105 Ohio St., 229, 137 N. E., 11; Rosanski v. State, 106 Ohio St., 442, 140 N. E., 370; State v. Sabo, 108 Ohio St., 200, 140 N. E., 499. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore *61 reversed and the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.

Judgment reversed.

Mabshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

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

*60 By the Court.

Joseph Nagle was convicted in the municipal court of Cleveland on a charge of unlawful possession of liquor, contrary to the provisions of an ordinance of that city. On proceedings in error that judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals by a majority decision (one of the judges dissenting) upon the ground that “there is no evidence to show trafficking in liquor.”

The record discloses that police officers went to the place of residence of the defendant after numerous complaints had been made that he was harboring girls and women; that upon inquiry defendant denied that there was any ground for such complaint, but promptly informed the officers that he had liquor in his basement; that thereupon he conducted the officers to the basement, where there was a room about eighteen by twenty-two feet, with tables and chairs; that on one side of the room there was a bar and two barrels of beer tapped and ready for service; and that there were also in the room a five-gallon can containing about three gallons of whisky, three other jugs about half full, a separate pint bottle of whisky, many empty whisky bottles, together with beer glasses, whisky glasses, pretzels and all kinds of soft drinks. It was described by the officers as a “regular bar outfit.” The defendant admitted ownership of the establishment and of the beer and liquor, and also admitted its intoxicating character.

Upon such state of facts the conviction was supported by Ciano v. State, 105 Ohio St., 229, 137 N. E., 11; Rosanski v. State, 106 Ohio St., 442, 140 N. E., 370; State v. Sabo, 108 Ohio St., 200, 140 N. E., 499. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore *61 reversed and the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.

Judgment reversed.

Mabshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 N.E. 886, 124 Ohio St. 59, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 59, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 349, 1931 Ohio LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cleveland-v-nagle-ohio-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack