Coakley v. City of Cincinnati

Hamilton Circuit Court

Coakley v. City of Cincinnati

13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 394, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 279

DecidedJuly 2, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 394 (Coakley v. City of Cincinnati) 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.

Bluebook

Coakley v. City of Cincinnati, 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 394, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 279 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

The charge in the affidavit that the defendant “being then and there a known thief” is sufficient without setting forth the facts from which he is known as a thief. His general course of conduct or reputation with respect to being a thief is thereby put in issue.

The evidence of his conviction, inprisonment at St. Louis and subsequent parol by Gov. Polk was hearsay and erroneous; but there could be no prejudice, as it was also shown by his own admission.

The information conveyed by the police department .of St. Louis concerning his general reputation was not hearsay, the rule as stated in Greenl. Ev., Section 101, and quoted in the ease of Upthegrove v. State, 37 O. S., 662, being as follows:

“Upon the same principle it is considered that evidence of general reputation, reputed ownership, public rumor, general notoriety and the like, though composed of the speech of third persons, not under oath, is original evidence and not hearsay.”

We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.

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

The charge in the affidavit that the defendant “being then and there a known thief” is sufficient without setting forth the facts from which he is known as a thief. His general course of conduct or reputation with respect to being a thief is thereby put in issue.

The evidence of his conviction, inprisonment at St. Louis and subsequent parol by Gov. Polk was hearsay and erroneous; but there could be no prejudice, as it was also shown by his own admission.

The information conveyed by the police department .of St. Louis concerning his general reputation was not hearsay, the rule as stated in Greenl. Ev., Section 101, and quoted in the ease of Upthegrove v. State, 37 O. S., 662, being as follows:

“Upon the same principle it is considered that evidence of general reputation, reputed ownership, public rumor, general notoriety and the like, though composed of the speech of third persons, not under oath, is original evidence and not hearsay.”

We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 394, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coakley-v-city-of-cincinnati-ohcircthamilton-1910.