Ex parte Stanfeal

Hamilton Circuit Court

Ex parte Stanfeal

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 664

DecidedMay 11, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 664 (Ex parte Stanfeal) 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

Ex parte Stanfeal, 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 664 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

GIFFEN, J.

J. B. Stanfeal was convicted under Lan. Rev. Stat. 10754 (B. 7033-1), of barbering on Sunday, and sentenced to pay a fine of $15 and costs. It is urged that by the commitment he is denied the right to secure the fine and costs to be paid, as provided by Rev. Stat. 1846 (Lan. 3380; B. 1536-793). While it is true that this omission makes the penalty more oppressive than is warranted by statute, yet it is only an irregularity which may be corrected by proceedings in error, but not by habeas corpus. Van Hagan, Ex parte, 25 Ohio St. 426.

Laning Rev. Stat. 10754 (B. 7033-1) is not unconstitutional and void, because of the failure to provide therein a maximum penalty. The power of the court in administering the law is limited by Sec. 9, Art. I of the constitution of the state. Frese v. State, 23 Fla. 267 [2 So. Rep. 1] ; Yell, In re, 107 Mich. 228 [65 N. W. Rep. 97].

Where a person is convicted under Lan. Rev. Stat. 10754 (B. 7033-1), and ordered to be committed until the fine imposed and costs taxed are paid or he be otherwise discharged according to law, it is not error on habeas corpus to direct the mayor issuing the process to amend the mittimus by providing that the fine and costs may be secured to be paid. People v. Kelly, 97 N. Y. 212; Harris, In re, 68 Vt. 243 [35 Atl. Rep. 55],

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

GIFFEN, J.

J. B. Stanfeal was convicted under Lan. Rev. Stat. 10754 (B. 7033-1), of barbering on Sunday, and sentenced to pay a fine of $15 and costs. It is urged that by the commitment he is denied the right to secure the fine and costs to be paid, as provided by Rev. Stat. 1846 (Lan. 3380; B. 1536-793). While it is true that this omission makes the penalty more oppressive than is warranted by statute, yet it is only an irregularity which may be corrected by proceedings in error, but not by habeas corpus. Van Hagan, Ex parte, 25 Ohio St. 426.

Laning Rev. Stat. 10754 (B. 7033-1) is not unconstitutional and void, because of the failure to provide therein a maximum penalty. The power of the court in administering the law is limited by Sec. 9, Art. I of the constitution of the state. Frese v. State, 23 Fla. 267 [2 So. Rep. 1] ; Yell, In re, 107 Mich. 228 [65 N. W. Rep. 97].

Where a person is convicted under Lan. Rev. Stat. 10754 (B. 7033-1), and ordered to be committed until the fine imposed and costs taxed are paid or he be otherwise discharged according to law, it is not error on habeas corpus to direct the mayor issuing the process to amend the mittimus by providing that the fine and costs may be secured to be paid. People v. Kelly, 97 N. Y. 212; Harris, In re, 68 Vt. 243 [35 Atl. Rep. 55],

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-stanfeal-ohcircthamilton-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack