State v. Orby

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Orby

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 777

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1924

DocketNo. 4776

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 777 (State v. Orby) 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

State v. Orby, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 777 (Ohio Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

An affidavit was filed in the court of Mayor Hill of Lakwood, O., and a warrant sworn out for defendant Louis Orby charging him With the offense of having liquor in his possession. The affidavit was sworn to by Police .Lieutenant Lang and was certified by Mayor Hill as being sworn to by Lang. After a motion to quash and a demurrer had been overruled, Orby pleaded not guilty. Lang testified on the wfitnessstand that he did not hold up his hand and swear before Mayor Hill before signing the affidavit. The Mayor went forward with the case, heard the! testimony, found Orby guilty and fined him $500. Orby prosecuted error to the Common Pleas, which reversed the ease because the police -Sfficer had not been properly sworn. The State prosecuted error to the Court of Appeals, which held:

The testimony1 of the police officer that he was not properly sworn is not sufficient to cause a reversal of the case. If so it would bring into the case a collateral issue. The statute provides a penalty for certifying to an affidavit when the formalities of the law have not been fully complied with. That does not nullify the affidavit if it is regular on its face. Judgment of the Common Pleas reversed and judgment of the Mayor’s Court affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

An affidavit was filed in the court of Mayor Hill of Lakwood, O., and a warrant sworn out for defendant Louis Orby charging him With the offense of having liquor in his possession. The affidavit was sworn to by Police .Lieutenant Lang and was certified by Mayor Hill as being sworn to by Lang. After a motion to quash and a demurrer had been overruled, Orby pleaded not guilty. Lang testified on the wfitnessstand that he did not hold up his hand and swear before Mayor Hill before signing the affidavit. The Mayor went forward with the case, heard the! testimony, found Orby guilty and fined him $500. Orby prosecuted error to the Common Pleas, which reversed the ease because the police -Sfficer had not been properly sworn. The State prosecuted error to the Court of Appeals, which held:

The testimony1 of the police officer that he was not properly sworn is not sufficient to cause a reversal of the case. If so it would bring into the case a collateral issue. The statute provides a penalty for certifying to an affidavit when the formalities of the law have not been fully complied with. That does not nullify the affidavit if it is regular on its face. Judgment of the Common Pleas reversed and judgment of the Mayor’s Court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-orby-ohioctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack