State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey

140 N.E. 609, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 844, 108 Ohio St. 440, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 203

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 28, 1923·No. Nos. 17904, 17817·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

The governor, after hearing had before him, re| moved Vogt from the office of mayor -of M-assilloiT [845]*845for Misconduct, non-feasance and gross neglect of duty in office- Writs of mandamus and quo war-. ranto were asked on relation of Vogt against the governor and K, Vogt’s successor, respectively. In denying the.writs, the Supreme Court held:

Attorneys — Joseph McGhee and P. E. Dempsey, Columbus, and Elson Weffer and Milton' Haines, MassijUon, for Vogt; C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and Edward E- Corn, Ironton, for Donahey; L- C- Wiggins, Massillon, for Kirchoffer-

Whijle the greater part of the evidence ini the record is hearsay and concerns misconduct in a former term and is therefore incompetent, there is- some evidence tending to prove that because of acts in his then term of office the mayor was guilty as charged. While the court would hesitate to convict on this evidence, its province extends only to the determination of whether there was any such evidence.

Wanamaker, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ-, concur

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

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

The governor, after hearing had before him, re| moved Vogt from the office of mayor -of M-assilloiT [845]*845for Misconduct, non-feasance and gross neglect of duty in office- Writs of mandamus and quo war-. ranto were asked on relation of Vogt against the governor and K, Vogt’s successor, respectively. In denying the.writs, the Supreme Court held:

Attorneys — Joseph McGhee and P. E. Dempsey, Columbus, and Elson Weffer and Milton' Haines, MassijUon, for Vogt; C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and Edward E- Corn, Ironton, for Donahey; L- C- Wiggins, Massillon, for Kirchoffer-

Whijle the greater part of the evidence ini the record is hearsay and concerns misconduct in a former term and is therefore incompetent, there is- some evidence tending to prove that because of acts in his then term of office the mayor was guilty as charged. While the court would hesitate to convict on this evidence, its province extends only to the determination of whether there was any such evidence.

Wanamaker, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ-, concur

State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey, 140 N.E. 609, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 844, 108 Ohio St. 440, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 203 (Ohio 1923).

Pincite

140 N.E. 609 (State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related