City of Middletown v. Banks

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Middletown v. Banks

184 N.E.2d 407, 116 Ohio App. 361, 22 Ohio Op. 2d 197, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 664

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 23, 1962

Docket1165 and 1166

StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.E.2d 407 (City of Middletown v. Banks) 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 Middletown v. Banks, 184 N.E.2d 407, 116 Ohio App. 361, 22 Ohio Op. 2d 197, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 664 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Keeee, J.

Defendants below were charged with violation of the following ordinance of the city of Middletown:

“925.02 DisoedeRly Conduct. It shall be unlawful for any person to wilfully conduct himself in a noisy, boisterous, rude, insulting, or other disorderly manner, with intent to abuse or annoy any person or the citizens of the city or any portion thereof, or to permit or suffer such act made unlawful herein to be committed on or about his house or any premises attached thereto. ’ ’

After trial by the Middletown Municipal Court, without jury, defendants were convicted and each fined fifty dollars ($50) and court costs, execution of the sentence being suspended indefinitely if the defendants remained away from the prosecuting witness, Elisha Miller. Defendants have appealed, contending that violation of the above ordinance was not proved.

The defendants called the prosecuting witness a “scab” in the presence of others. Examination of the bill of exceptions clearly shows a strained and unfriendly relationship to have existed between the prosecuting witness and the defendants at the time of the name-calling. The prosecuting witness definite *362 ly resented being called a ‘ ‘ scab ’ ’ and was annoyed by it. His attitude of disapproval is made manifest by Ms going to tbe trouble of signing affidavits against tbe defendants and appearing and testifying against them at tbeir trials.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines tbe word “scab.” Here is a part of tbe definition: “4a: a mean contemptible person; scoundrel.” In bis testimony, tbe prosecuting witness did not give a so-called dictionary definition of “scab,” but bis testimony shows that be bad a general conception of tbe meaning of tbe word and knew it was being used with reference to him in an insulting manner. Tbe testimony also establishes that tbe name was being called in a noisy and boisterous fashion unquestionably with an “intent to abuse or annoy. ’ ’

We are of tbe opinion that tbe city’s proof in these two cases was adequate to sustain convictions under the “disorderly conduct” ordinance.

One of tbe contentions of counsel for defendants was that tbe city bad tbe duty to prove them guilty of conduct which was noisy and boisterous and rude and insulting. This contention is not tenable. Such an interpretation of tbe language of tbe ordinance would be unreasonable, when one considers tbe obvious purpose for such an ordinance. In this respect, tbe only reasonable way to read tbe words “noisy,” “boisterous,” “rude,” “insulting” is in tbe alternative or disjunctive, as if they bad tbe word “ or ” separating them.

After finding tbe defendants guilty as charged, tbe trial judge relieved them from any obligation to pay either tbe fine or costs as long as they remained away from tbe prosecuting witness and discontinued annoying him. This sentence seems fair and commensurate with the nature of tbe transactions.

The defendants below bad a fair trial. Tbe judgments of conviction must be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Long, P. J,, and Hildebjiant, J,, concur.

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

Keeee, J.

Defendants below were charged with violation of the following ordinance of the city of Middletown:

“925.02 DisoedeRly Conduct. It shall be unlawful for any person to wilfully conduct himself in a noisy, boisterous, rude, insulting, or other disorderly manner, with intent to abuse or annoy any person or the citizens of the city or any portion thereof, or to permit or suffer such act made unlawful herein to be committed on or about his house or any premises attached thereto. ’ ’

After trial by the Middletown Municipal Court, without jury, defendants were convicted and each fined fifty dollars ($50) and court costs, execution of the sentence being suspended indefinitely if the defendants remained away from the prosecuting witness, Elisha Miller. Defendants have appealed, contending that violation of the above ordinance was not proved.

The defendants called the prosecuting witness a “scab” in the presence of others. Examination of the bill of exceptions clearly shows a strained and unfriendly relationship to have existed between the prosecuting witness and the defendants at the time of the name-calling. The prosecuting witness definite *362 ly resented being called a ‘ ‘ scab ’ ’ and was annoyed by it. His attitude of disapproval is made manifest by Ms going to tbe trouble of signing affidavits against tbe defendants and appearing and testifying against them at tbeir trials.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines tbe word “scab.” Here is a part of tbe definition: “4a: a mean contemptible person; scoundrel.” In bis testimony, tbe prosecuting witness did not give a so-called dictionary definition of “scab,” but bis testimony shows that be bad a general conception of tbe meaning of tbe word and knew it was being used with reference to him in an insulting manner. Tbe testimony also establishes that tbe name was being called in a noisy and boisterous fashion unquestionably with an “intent to abuse or annoy. ’ ’

We are of tbe opinion that tbe city’s proof in these two cases was adequate to sustain convictions under the “disorderly conduct” ordinance.

One of tbe contentions of counsel for defendants was that tbe city bad tbe duty to prove them guilty of conduct which was noisy and boisterous and rude and insulting. This contention is not tenable. Such an interpretation of tbe language of tbe ordinance would be unreasonable, when one considers tbe obvious purpose for such an ordinance. In this respect, tbe only reasonable way to read tbe words “noisy,” “boisterous,” “rude,” “insulting” is in tbe alternative or disjunctive, as if they bad tbe word “ or ” separating them.

After finding tbe defendants guilty as charged, tbe trial judge relieved them from any obligation to pay either tbe fine or costs as long as they remained away from tbe prosecuting witness and discontinued annoying him. This sentence seems fair and commensurate with the nature of tbe transactions.

The defendants below bad a fair trial. Tbe judgments of conviction must be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Long, P. J,, and Hildebjiant, J,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.E.2d 407, 116 Ohio App. 361, 22 Ohio Op. 2d 197, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-middletown-v-banks-ohioctapp-1962.