Enderes v. State

Ohio Circuit Courts

Enderes v. State

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 517

Ohio Circuit Courts·Decided November 14, 1908·Published

Opinion

QIFFEN, J.

It is not charged in the affidavit that the offense was 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.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

QIFFEN, J.

It is not charged in the affidavit that the offense was 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.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

Enderes v. State, 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 517 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 517 (Enderes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.