Cluckey v. Rasmussen

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cluckey v. Rasmussen

13 Ohio Law. Abs. 353, 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1001

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 1932·No. No 153·Published

Opinion

BY THE COURT

We are satisfied that the plaintiff in error can not substitute a hearing upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus for a trial upon the merits of the offense charged in the affidavit. The questions thus sought to be raised must be made at the trial, and if adversely determined may then be questioned in proceedings in error instituted for that purpose.

Tari v State, 117 Oh St, 481;

Nicholas v Cleveland, 125 Oh St, 474;

Ohio Bar, Aug. 29, 1932, p. 474;

Lamia v Cleveland, Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, NE Rep., October 12, 1832, p. 331. (12 Abs 611).

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is therefore affirmed.

LLOYD, RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

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

BY THE COURT

We are satisfied that the plaintiff in error can not substitute a hearing upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus for a trial upon the merits of the offense charged in the affidavit. The questions thus sought to be raised must be made at the trial, and if adversely determined may then be questioned in proceedings in error instituted for that purpose.

Tari v State, 117 Oh St, 481;

Nicholas v Cleveland, 125 Oh St, 474;

Ohio Bar, Aug. 29, 1932, p. 474;

Lamia v Cleveland, Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, NE Rep., October 12, 1832, p. 331. (12 Abs 611).

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is therefore affirmed.

LLOYD, RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Cluckey v. Rasmussen, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 353, 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1001 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

13 Ohio Law. Abs. 353 (Cluckey v. Rasmussen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related