McCollum v. City of Cincinnati

199 N.E. 603, 51 Ohio App. 67, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 35, 4 Ohio Op. 49, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 402

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 27, 1935
• Status: Published

Opinion

OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

The complaint that the ordinance violates Article II of the amendments of the Federal Constitution may be disposed of by the statement that that provision has reference to the military arm of the government, and is not designed as a limitation upon the state governments -in reference to their own citizens, but relates exclusively to the powers under the Federal government. Burke v State of Ohio, 104 Oh St, 220, and cases therein cited.

Section 1 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution embraces the rights therein enumerated, subject to only such restraints as are necessary to the common welfare. The city ordinance in question pertains to the common welfare and is regulatory under the police power of the state. Palmer et v Tingle, 55 Oh St, 423.

Section 4 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution refers only to the military arm of the state.

The ordinance in question docs not contravene either the state or the Federal Constitution.

It is suggested in the brief that McCollum had the right to kill a dog, which he claims to have’ been the reason for the discharging of the fire arms, and claims to have been given that right under 85838, GC. The dog was killed in fighting the dog belonging to the accused. The statu’e does not mention killing of a dog in a fight with another dog.

We find no prejudicial error in the record of the Municipal Court and its judgment is affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.