THE OHIO DECISIONS SERIES,

COVERING EVERY BRANCH OF OHIO CASE LAW.

SUPREME COURT. One volume a year advance sheets of decisions announced by the Supreme Court.

FEDERAL COURTS. One volume a year of cases decided in Federal Courts held in Ohio, covering Ohio cases.

CIRCUIT COURTS. One volume a year containing all reported cases decided by the Circuit Courts of Ohio..

LOWER CURTS. One volume a year made up of select cases decided in the Superior, Common Pleas and Probate Courts.

This series began in 1894, but will e filled soon by reprints of earlier cases, with additions of many unpublished ones.

THE PROMINENT FEATURES OF THIS SERIES ARE: Large Volumes. No, reports ever published in Ohio have had half the amount of matter, or the completeness and correctness.

Advance Sheets. The cases decided each week are put in type by us as fast as received. and advance sheets of the matter for the different volumes printed, and sent out weekly as a supplement to the OHIO LEGAL NEWS, free to all its subscribers.

Permanent Bound Volumes take the place of returning the weekly parts for binding, as the advance sheets are upon poor paper, not for binding, and may be destroyed when the bound volumes are received. In this way, instead of having the weekly parts loose about the office, some of which become lost, and the whole inaccessible, you get indexed volumes for quick reference, as soon as complete.

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE.

Volumes bound in full sheep, delivered to subscribers, $2.50 per volume. With volumes one, two and three, the Ohio Digest for 1895 without charge.

The Cheapest, Fullest and Best Ohio Reports, and as .official as possible, as every decision is read and approved by the rendering court before final publication.

THE LANING PRINTING CO., Publishers,

NORWALK, OHIO.

Bound copies of Vol. 1. Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 of the Ohio Decisions can be had at $2.50 per volume. if bound in full sheep, or $2.25 per volume in half sheep.

Bound volumes of Vol. 1. OHIO LEGAL NEWS (Toledo Legal News) will be furnished at $2.00 per volume.

Bound copies of Vols. 1, 2 or 3 of Ohio Decisions, or of the LEGAL NEWS will be sent in exchange for the advance sheets, at $1.00 per volume in full sheep or 75 cents in half sheep.

Judge H. L. Sibley, of Marietta, was`nom nated at Portsmouth last week, for c.rcuit judge. He has been on the common pleas Lench fra term of fourteen years, and has gained the esteem of every one, as a hard working and conscientious, judge, and deserving of the honor conferred upon him by nominating him for judge of the circuit court.

Judge Moore, of Cincinnati, who is chairman of the executive committee of the Ohio. State Bar Association, has received a letter from John Randolph Tucker, LL. D., of the law department of Washington and Lee University, accepting an invitation of the Bar Association to deliver an address at its annual meeting to be held at Put-in-Bay in July.

The lawyers' judicial ticket of Cincinnati has been prepared under rules adopted by the bar, and the following names have been certified to the board of e ections as constituting the lawyers' judicial ticket: M. S. Buchwalter; Frank M. Coppock; Charles Evans; A. B. Benedict; Win. Littleford. Mr. Benedict is a democrat, the other four are r publicans.

In a suit for d mages, caused by a dog bite, which was recently tried before Judge Wright, of the Hamilton commen pleas, the defendant requested the court to give a rather queer charge,, to the effect that it was not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff was bitten by the dog as alleged by the plaintiff, but it must appear 'that the dog intended to bite the plaintiff. The court promptly refused to give the charge.

In an action for damages, for death caused by wrongful act, in arriving at the amount of damages to be recovered, evidence of how much

Entered at the Postoffice, Norwalk? Ohio, as second money the decedent had sent his family is held

class matter.

On July 6th, the republicans of the first subdivision of the fourth judicial district will hold a delegate convention at Toledo, for the purpose of nominating three candidates for common pleas judge, one to succeed Judge Kelly.

to be admissible, and the jury, in estimating` the damages, should allow an amount that will compensate for the pecuniary loss caused, was so held in the case of Spaulding v. C. St. P. & K. C. Ry Co. (la), 67 N. W. 227.

In a recent case argued before the circuit court of Hamilton county, which involved the question whether a liveryman's lien upon a In the recent case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 16 horse for his keep is superior in Ohio to that Sup. Ct., 1138 (decided by our U. S. supreme of a chattel mortgage, the majority of the court), it was held that a state statute provid- court, in an opinion prepared by Judge Swing, ing that railroad companies shall provide sep-held that the liveryman had the first lien. arate accommodations for white and colored Judge Smith in a minor opinion dissents from persons does not violate the Thirteenth or some of the grounds-upon which the majority Fourteenth Amendments. reached their conclusions.

In the case of Wesner v. O'Brien, (Kan. Sup.) 44 Pac. R. 1090, which was a bill praying for a divorce. The court held that where in such a case a bill is brought where the plantiff resides, and lands of defendant are brought within the jurisdiction by averments in the petition, such lands may be awarded as alimony, though they lie in another county; and also that the court has power to award land as alimony on constructive notice to defendant, where such award is asked in the bill, and the publication notice contains a description of the land.

Judge Wilson, of the Hamilton common pleas, in a proceeding in error being brought before him from a magistrate, who held that taxes assessed against the plaintiff in error more than six years before the bringing of the suit, were not barred by the statute of limitations; held that the statute of limitations runs from the date for which the taxes are assessed, and that it applied in this case.

In business affairs we often come across the letters "O. K," and just what their legal sig-, nification amounts to was decided in the case of the First Nat. Bank v. Baker (II), 43

N E. R., 1074. In this case a person indorsed a document as "O. K.," over his signatus and the supreme court of Illinois held that this amounted to an acknowledgment of the instrument's correctness as to what it purports to be, though the approval of it cannot be extended beyond what appears in it.

Last Saturday the circuit court at Findlay, Hancock county, overruled the lower court and discharged the Rev. Joseph Ebben-Powell, the Episcopal minister convicted of fraudulent registration. The court held that the indictment was defective in its wording and that it did not sufficiently describe the crime. The court, did not piss upon the question of the minister's guilt. The prosecuting attorney together with Hon. W. E. Kidder, counsel for In a bastardy case recently tried in the Hamthe state, are firm in their opinion that the in-ilton common pleas court, the defendant was

dictment is sufficient and will test the question in the supreme court.

found guilty and a judgment of $300 was rendered against him. The defendant was not in court either in person or by attorney at the time of his trial. His recognizance was accordingly declared forfeited, and $500 having

nizance, the court ordered that $200 of it be applied on the judgment. The defendant carried the case to the circuit court on error, and in a decision filed by Judge Smith it was held that the court below had the right, under section 5623, to make the order that the judgment be paid out of the money paid into court on the defendant's defaulted recognizance.

In the case of Beers v. Boston & A. R. Co.. 34 Atl. Rep., 541, the court lays down the doc-been paid into court under the forfeited recogtrine that no man can have the care of another's property thrust upon him, without his invitation or consent, in such a way as to raise a daty calling for the performance of positive acts of protection. He might be bound to refrain from acts of direct injury, this is a mere negation of wrong-doing; but he is never liable for omissions, except in consequence of some duty voluntarily undertaken. Gross negligence is not actionable where not even slight care was due.

We understand that Judge Sayler, of the Hamilton common pleas court, is to fill the chair of Mr. Channing Richards at the Cincinnati law school during the disability of Mr. Richards. Judge Sayler, in addition to his eminent career at the bar and on the bench, has had a fine scholastic training, which will aid him in his duties as an instructor; he graduated from the Miami University, and has an LL. D. from Heidelberg, Germany, having taken a three years' course in jurisprudence in that university. We congratulate the law school in having secured the services of such an able instructor in the person of Judge Sayler.

The trial of ex-Senator Ohl, of Mahoning county, on the charge of attempting to bribe Senator E. M. Avery, of. Cleveland, O., into "holding up" two state university bills, took place at Columbus last week and resulted in an acquittal of the ex-Senator. It is understood that at least one of the two remaining indictments against the ex-Senator will be tried at the next term of court.

Senator Iden's motion for a new trial of the case in which he was convicted of offering a bribe to clerk John R. Malloy, was heard last Saturday afternoon.

There is also an untried indictment against ex-Senator Gear, of Upper Sandusky, and it is understood that it will be set down for trial next term. This will wind up the bribery cases that were brought last fall,

The Athens county celebrated road case, which has caused such a flurry throughout the state, has taken another turn. It appears that the contractors who constructed the road have sued the county for the full amount of their claim, and that the common pleas of the county has rendered judgment in favor of the contractor for the full amount. If this decision of the lower court will be sustained by the higher courts, it will virtually amount to that although a law under which an improvement is being constructed be declared unconstitutional, and the county has work done under it, the connty will be liable for the payment of the claim. Although the law is unconstitutional, the county gets the benefit of the work done under that law, and therefore it ought to pay for it.

The supreme court of Colorado, in the case of Harrington v. Johnson, 44 Pac. Rep., 368, holds that the acceptance of a check raises no presumption that it is taken in payment, and that it is only regarded as a payment when it is in fact paid, and not till then. The mere giving of a check does not operate to pay nor to extinguish a debt in the absence of a specified agreement of the parties to that end. It is only regarded as a means of payment, and | unless a loss is sustained by the drawer caused by the negligence of the holder, the debt will not be discharged, and then only in propor tion to the loss sustained. And if the check is not paid the creditor may sue on the original debt, and the check will not be evidence of payment unless there is distinct proof that it was actually cashed, or some evidence which shows that a loss has fallen on the drawer.

In a recent case tried in the common pleas of Hamilton, in which a person was arrested on the charge of drunkenness and taken to jail, and when he was arraigned for trial he was not tried on the charge of drunkenness but was convicted and sentenced to the work house for three years under the habitual criminal act. In that case, on habeas corpus proceedings being brought, the court held that the prisoner could not be sentenced for any crime other than the one for which he was arrested, and that therefore, the sentence was illegal, and the prisoner was ordered released.

In the case of Wells v. Hill (N. C.) 24 S. E. R., 771, which was an action involving the limitation of an action by the giving of a new promise, which arose by the maker of a past due note who wrote to the holder of the note to the effect, that he, the maker, would not give the holder a mortgage as security, that he had notes on which he expected to realize sufficient to pay all he owed; and that he expected to pay every doller on the note, and that if the holder would give him time, he would pay the note with other notes he held. The court held that this was not a sufficient acknowledgment and a new promise to pay the debt, so as to remove the bar of the statute of limitations. But in the opinion the chief justice and another judge dissented.

Judge Hollister of the Hamilton county common pleas court, last week, in the personal injury case of Wiley v. The Big Four Railway, decided a very important question of pleading. The petition stated several causes of action, each of which contained a charge of negligence on the part of the company, through its agents, but from which resulted the one injury complained of. The defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to elect on which cause of action he intended to rely. In passing on the motion the court held as follows:

In the suit which was begun in the Hamilton common pleas to test the constitutionality of the Cincinnati new water works law, Judge Hollister, in giving his decision last Saturday, holds that the recent act contravenes section 26, article 2, of the constitution, which provides that "All laws of a general nature shail have a "Where but one injury has resulted from uniform operation throughout the state." several concurrent acts of negligence. It is Judge Hollister followed the recent decision of not good pleading under the code for the our supreme court in the case of Hixon v. plaintiff to set forth such acts of carelessness Burson, 54-0. S. R., Adv. 243, wherein it was in a separate cause of action; and when he has declared that whether a law is general or spec-done so the court will, upon motion, require ial in its nature is dependent upon the nature of its subject matter, without regard to its form, and that if the subject matter is of such a character that general laws are applicable to it, then all laws, not some laws, relative to such subject matter must be of uniform operation throughout the state.

him to elect upon which act as set out in a separate cause of action he will proceed. He may in one cause of action allege all the acts of negligence from which the injury has resulted, and on the trial he may rely upon any or all of such acts as he is able to prove. The motion to require an election is granted."

In a recent decision of the supreme court of two days' labor applies, "All male persons Mass., in the case of The City of Newton v. between the age of 21 and 55, able to perform Joyce (44 N. F. R. 116), which involved the or cause to be performed the labor herein reconstitutionality of a state statute, which pro- quired." The point raised by the county hibited any person from maintaining a stable prosecutor was as to whether able to “cause to for more than four horses in any city, without be performed" means such persons as first having obtained a license from the city are financially able to employ others to do the board of heaith, although no compensation work for them. Mr. Lott disclaimed from renwas provided an owner of property. The de- dering an official opinion upon the subject, it fendant contended that the statute was un-not being within the jurisdiction of the attorconstitutional as it deprived him of the use of ney-general's office, but in an unofficial opinion his property without any provision for com- Mr. Lott held that the law means that where a pensation, and because he has no right of appeal | man is financially able to employ a person to from a decision of the board, as to whether he do the work he is required to do so under the should have a license or not. The court held law, and that the only other view would be that that the statute was constitutional, as it was the clause means physically able to perform or clearly an exercise of the police powers of the cause to be performed, wi:ich would be an abstate, and not of the right of eminent domain, surdity. As to the question of the constituand that such an exercise is constitutional, tionality of the law, Mr. Lott cited the decision although there is no provision made for com- of Davis v. Simon, 51 O. S., 233, in which the pensation to the owner, and no right of appeal former poll tax, repealed in 1894, was held to given from the local authorities to whom the be constitutional, and as the present section in legislature has entrusted the determination of the question. question is, with the exception of a slight verbal change, a true copy of that in the old law, there can be no doubt as to its constitutionality.

District Attorney Dodge is about to institute several suits in the United States court, under section 10 of a law passed February 8, 1875, In the case of Commonwealth v. Murphy [44 against several manufacturing firms for a vio- | N. F. Rep., 138], decided by the supreme court lation of the revenue laws, in not paying the of Mass. in May, 1896, which involved the constatutory tax on scrip which they issued in struction of a state statute which prohibited payment of their employees, and which was parading of unauthorized bodies of men with used by them for the purchase of goods, and arms. The defendant together with a comafterwards redeemed by the firms issuing the pany of men formed a parade, and carried paper. The United States statutes provide ordinary breech-loading rifles, which had been that every person, firm, association, other than rendered useless as fire-arms, and which could a national bank association, every other cor-not be used to discharge any missile by means of poration, state bank or state banking associa- gun powder or any other kind of explosive. The tion shall pay a tax of ten per cent. on the defendant contended that this statute was in amount of their notes used for circulation, and paid out by them. Attorney Dodge said that the law compelling this ten per cent. revenue is a good law, and that it will always remain on the statute book, and that it should be enforced. If you do not enforce it what is there to prevent any concern from issuing its own notes? Such suits are not uncommon, but there may be a question whether or not the notes issued come within the statute mentioned.

Assistant Attorney-General Lott, recently rendered an important opinion in response to an inquiry from the prosecuting attorney of Wayne county, on the poll-tax law which was enacted by our last general assembly. The section of the law relating to country districts mentions as those to whom the requirement of

violation of the declaration of rights in which it is declared that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense.” This, the court said, could not be supported, as the right to heep and bear arms for the common defense does not include the right to associate together as a military organization, or to drill and parade with arms, in cities and towns, unless authorized to do so by law, as this was a matter which affected the public security, quiet and good order, and which is within the police powers of the legislature to regulate. The defendant further contended that this statnte, which mentions certain classes as exempt from its operation is class legislation, which signals out certain classes and grants them privileges which are denied to the body of the people, to this the court reply, that the granting to certain persons of