Enderes v. State

Hamilton Circuit Court

Enderes v. State

11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 473, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 243

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided November 14, 1908·Published

Opinion

It is not charged .in the affidavit that the offense ivas committed at the city of Cincinnati and county of Hamilton, but “within four miles of the corporate limits of the city and county aforesaid. ” Under this averment it may have been in the state of Kentucky. It is admitted in the record that Coney Island is within four miles of the city of Cincinnati, but there is no proof that it is within the county of Hamilton and state of Ohio.

Judgment reversed.

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

It is not charged .in the affidavit that the offense ivas committed at the city of Cincinnati and county of Hamilton, but “within four miles of the corporate limits of the city and county aforesaid. ” Under this averment it may have been in the state of Kentucky. It is admitted in the record that Coney Island is within four miles of the city of Cincinnati, but there is no proof that it is within the county of Hamilton and state of Ohio.

Judgment reversed.

Enderes v. State, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 473, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 243 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 473 (Enderes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.