In re Dunlap

Hamilton County Court of Insolvency

In re Dunlap

13 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 325, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 145

CourtHamilton County Court of Insolvency

DecidedMarch 5, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 325 (In re Dunlap) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton County Court of Insolvency primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Dunlap, 13 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 325, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 145 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Warner, J.

Heard on applications for writs of habeas corpus.

These persons were committed to the city workhouse' by the police court," having been found guilty of loitering — -wandering about the streets — contrary to a part of the provisions of Section 907, city ordinances. There is no statutory authority giving a municipality power to make loitering or wandering about the streets a crime, unless it be found in Sections 3658 and 3664 of the General Code, granting authority to prevent and punish persons guilty of “disorderly conduct.”

But “disorderly conduct” is not defined in any statute or ordinance, and the Court is unable to say, as a matter of law, that [326]*326the acts charged against these persons, of which they have been convicted and sentenced, constitute such conduct.

Writs allowed and prisoners discharged.

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

Warner, J.

Heard on applications for writs of habeas corpus.

These persons were committed to the city workhouse' by the police court," having been found guilty of loitering — -wandering about the streets — contrary to a part of the provisions of Section 907, city ordinances. There is no statutory authority giving a municipality power to make loitering or wandering about the streets a crime, unless it be found in Sections 3658 and 3664 of the General Code, granting authority to prevent and punish persons guilty of “disorderly conduct.”

But “disorderly conduct” is not defined in any statute or ordinance, and the Court is unable to say, as a matter of law, that [326]*326the acts charged against these persons, of which they have been convicted and sentenced, constitute such conduct.

Writs allowed and prisoners discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 325, 1912 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dunlap-ohctinsolvhamil-1912.