Lorain (City) v. Jameson

Ohio Court of Appeals

Lorain (City) v. Jameson

153 N.E. 301, 20 Ohio App. 528, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 279, 1924 Ohio App. LEXIS 128

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 4, 1924

Docket284

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 153 N.E. 301 (Lorain (City) v. Jameson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lorain (City) v. Jameson, 153 N.E. 301, 20 Ohio App. 528, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 279, 1924 Ohio App. LEXIS 128 (Ohio Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

(Funk, Pardee and Washburn).

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Jameson was convicted in Lorain Municipal Court of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. The Comjmon Pleas Court reversed the judgment as being against the weight of the evidence. The evidence disclosed that Jame-son was an industrious, hard-working, temperate ufan and lived) in a part of a house, the other part being occupied by one Skinner, but they used the bathrooml in common. In an opening in the bathroom floor, two small bottles containing liquor were found. Both occupants denied any knowledge of the liquor. Confirming the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, the Court of Appeals held:

1 “It is • settled, especially in civil cases, that a- judgment should not be reversed unless it is manifestly contrary to the evidence. There is some difference between the operation of the rule in civil and criminal cases. In the former a bare preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to authorize a verdict, but in a criminal case the evidence must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether a judgment in a criminal case is manifestly against the weight of evidence, the reviewing court should take into consideration the degree of proof in criminal cases.”

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

PER CURIAM

(Funk, Pardee and Washburn).

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Jameson was convicted in Lorain Municipal Court of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. The Comjmon Pleas Court reversed the judgment as being against the weight of the evidence. The evidence disclosed that Jame-son was an industrious, hard-working, temperate ufan and lived) in a part of a house, the other part being occupied by one Skinner, but they used the bathrooml in common. In an opening in the bathroom floor, two small bottles containing liquor were found. Both occupants denied any knowledge of the liquor. Confirming the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, the Court of Appeals held:

1 “It is • settled, especially in civil cases, that a- judgment should not be reversed unless it is manifestly contrary to the evidence. There is some difference between the operation of the rule in civil and criminal cases. In the former a bare preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to authorize a verdict, but in a criminal case the evidence must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether a judgment in a criminal case is manifestly against the weight of evidence, the reviewing court should take into consideration the degree of proof in criminal cases.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.E. 301, 20 Ohio App. 528, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 279, 1924 Ohio App. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorain-city-v-jameson-ohioctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack