Lutkehaus v. Village of Mt. Healthy

Hamilton Circuit Court

Lutkehaus v. Village of Mt. Healthy

11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 536, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 251

DecidedDecember 19, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 536 (Lutkehaus v. Village of Mt. Healthy) 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

Lutkehaus v. Village of Mt. Healthy, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 536, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 251 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

In the trial of this case before the mayor no evidence was-offered by the plaintiff in error in defense, and we can not say that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, unless, as claimed by plaintiff in error, no evidence was offered upon the exception in the affidavit that the room claimed to have been open on Sunday was not a regular drug store.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we think the testimony offered by the state tended to prove the exception, as there was direct evidence that the place that was open was a saloon, and plaintiff in error sold intoxicating liquors therein; thereby showing it to be a place where on other days of the week intoxicating liquors are usually sold and thus tending to prove that the place was not a regular drug store.

We can not consider the validity of the ordinance, inasmuch as it does not appear upon the record. Nelson v. Berea, 21 Ct. Ct., 781.

Judgment affirmed.

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

In the trial of this case before the mayor no evidence was-offered by the plaintiff in error in defense, and we can not say that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, unless, as claimed by plaintiff in error, no evidence was offered upon the exception in the affidavit that the room claimed to have been open on Sunday was not a regular drug store.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we think the testimony offered by the state tended to prove the exception, as there was direct evidence that the place that was open was a saloon, and plaintiff in error sold intoxicating liquors therein; thereby showing it to be a place where on other days of the week intoxicating liquors are usually sold and thus tending to prove that the place was not a regular drug store.

We can not consider the validity of the ordinance, inasmuch as it does not appear upon the record. Nelson v. Berea, 21 Ct. Ct., 781.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 536, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutkehaus-v-village-of-mt-healthy-ohcircthamilton-1908.