Damm v. Cincinnati (City)

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

Damm v. Cincinnati (City)

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 301

CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

DecidedFebruary 28, 1925

DocketNo. 192169

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 301 (Damm v. Cincinnati (City)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Damm v. Cincinnati (City), 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 301 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

DARBY, J.

Frank Damm was charged upon an affidavit in the Cincinnati Municipal Court with assault and battery and upon his conviction was fined $50 and costs. It seems that Damm and .several others were prohibition officers, and acted upon information derived from other sources, and stopped one, Scheid, searching his machine without a warrant. Scheid thought they were holdup men, and claimed that he was struck a blow by one of them. Damm prosecuted the judgment of the Municipal Court to the Hamilton Common Pleas and the court held::

1. Sec. 6212-43 authorizes seizure and arrest when officers find that unlawful transportation of liquor is being made, but officer acts at his own peril when he acts without a warrant and fails to find a transportation in violation of law.

2. An unlawful arrest is in the nature of an assault and battery, and the stopping of Scheid and forcing him to drive to the curb was in itself a violent act.

3. Being of the opinion that the acts of Damm constituted an assault if not assault and battery. Judgment of lower court is affirmed.

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

DARBY, J.

Frank Damm was charged upon an affidavit in the Cincinnati Municipal Court with assault and battery and upon his conviction was fined $50 and costs. It seems that Damm and .several others were prohibition officers, and acted upon information derived from other sources, and stopped one, Scheid, searching his machine without a warrant. Scheid thought they were holdup men, and claimed that he was struck a blow by one of them. Damm prosecuted the judgment of the Municipal Court to the Hamilton Common Pleas and the court held::

1. Sec. 6212-43 authorizes seizure and arrest when officers find that unlawful transportation of liquor is being made, but officer acts at his own peril when he acts without a warrant and fails to find a transportation in violation of law.

2. An unlawful arrest is in the nature of an assault and battery, and the stopping of Scheid and forcing him to drive to the curb was in itself a violent act.

3. Being of the opinion that the acts of Damm constituted an assault if not assault and battery. Judgment of lower court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damm-v-cincinnati-city-ohctcomplhamilt-1925.