State ex rel. Glazier v. Lewis

Hamilton Circuit Court

State ex rel. Glazier v. Lewis

34 Ohio C.C. Dec. 82

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided July 1, 1905·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The proviso in Sec. 2 of act 96 O. L. 13, must be construed as excluding deputy state supervisors of elections in Hamilton county from the operation of See. 1 of the act in order to give effect to act 95 O. L. 328.

This construction is no more repugnant to Const. Art. 2, Sec. 26 than that which allows compensation to such deputy state supervisors under both acts, and limits deputy state supervisors in other counties to compensation under one.

The effect of such proviso is to increase the salary attached to a public office and contravenes Art. 2, Sec. 20, in so far as it affects the salary of the relator during the term he was serving when the statute was enacted. State v. Raine, 49 Ohio St. 580.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The proviso in Sec. 2 of act 96 O. L. 13, must be construed as excluding deputy state supervisors of elections in Hamilton county from the operation of See. 1 of the act in order to give effect to act 95 O. L. 328.

This construction is no more repugnant to Const. Art. 2, Sec. 26 than that which allows compensation to such deputy state supervisors under both acts, and limits deputy state supervisors in other counties to compensation under one.

The effect of such proviso is to increase the salary attached to a public office and contravenes Art. 2, Sec. 20, in so far as it affects the salary of the relator during the term he was serving when the statute was enacted. State v. Raine, 49 Ohio St. 580.

Judgment affirmed.

State ex rel. Glazier v. Lewis, 34 Ohio C.C. Dec. 82 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

34 Ohio C.C. Dec. 82 (State ex rel. Glazier v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.