City of Columbus v. Aldrich

• Decision Date: 23 January 1942
• Citation: 69 Ohio App. 396,42 N.E.2d 915
• Parties: CITY OF COLUMBUS v. ALDRICH.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

42 N.E.2d 915

69 Ohio App. 396

CITY OF COLUMBUS v. ALDRICH.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Franklin.

January 23, 1942

Wardlaw Gertner & Armstrong, of Columbus, for appellant.

Roland G. Allen, Police Prosecutor, of Columbus, for appellee.

GEIGER, Presiding Judge.

This cause had its inception in the Municipal Court, Criminal Division.

The defendant-appellant was charged under Section 11083 of the codified ordinance of the City. That section in so far as it relates to this case is a description of 'suspicious persons' and prescribes that any person found loitering about any barroom, gambling house, pool room, house of ill fame of gaming device, or found wandering about the streets either by day or night, without being able to give a reasonable and satisfactory account of himself shall be deemed and held to be a suspicious person, and on conviction thereof shall be fined as therein provided. The affidavit was to the effect that one Oliver Aldrich, on or about the 3rd day of November, A. D. 1941, at the City of Columbus, County of Franklin and State of Ohio, did unlawfully loiter and wander about a public place, beer place on Main Street, at Vinton Alley, without being able to give a satisfactory account of himself.

On November 10th the cause came on for hearing and the defendant was found guilty as charged and the court sentenced him to pay a fine of $50 and costs.

A motion for new trial was filed and overruled and a notice of appeal given to this court upon questions of law.

The assignment of errors is to the effect,

(1) That the judgment was manifestly against the weight of the evidence (2) That it is contrary to law and that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for directed verdict;

(3) In overruling the defendant's motion for acquittal;

(4) In admitting evidence offered by the City;

(5) And for other errors complained of.

The prosecuting witness, a police officer, testified in substance that upon the day in question he saw the defendant at 276 East Main Street at 9:30 P. M., sitting with the man now indicated as his attorney, and with a girl, Helen Tipton, and two other men, one of whom was Miller, the proprietor of the place, which seems to be conceded to answer the designation 'barroom'. The police officer testifies that Helen Tipton was a woman of bad repute; that he stepped to the door of the cafe and motioned the defendant to come to the door which he did, together with his attorney. Both defendant and the attorney protested against the action of the officer, claiming that the defendant and the attorney were simply quietly in the cafe, conversing on business matters. As to his 'loitering' about the place, the officer testified that the defendant had hung around the vicinity for the past four years; that he was never gainfully employed except for a certain short period; that he frequently saw him at the cafe in question, that being his hang-out, and that Helen, the woman, also loitered about the same place, claiming to be a cook at the place; that he had often seen this woman about the place in the evening; that he had seen her about the street and that place practically every night for a year, but that she had been working all the year at the Miller cafe.

When the officer called defendant to the door, he had seen him seated in the place probably three or four minutes. He testifies that the court had forbidden Aldrich to be in the place. After the conversation at the door and some dispute as to the officer's right to arrest the man, the wagon was called and he was taken to jail.

The City then rested, and the attorney made a motion that the charges be dismissed on the ground that the arresting officer had admitted that he saw the defendant in a man's place of business talking to a girl employee there. Counsel based his motion on other matters, concluding that he failed to see anything that occurred which the prosecuting witness testified to that would constitute his action as a suspicious person. The court overruled the motion. The defendant testifies to the transaction substantially as did the officer, stating that he had gone into the cafe to talk with the attorney about arranging for his fee and the bond in another case. The defendant on cross-examination admitted that he had been convicted Before, but claimed that he was then working for a Mr. Zeigler. The defendant gave an account of his working intermittently at other places, but frequently being idle. The Tipton girl testified that she worked at the Miller Grill, and that at the time the officer arrived the defendant had just walked inside and had ordered a drink and a package of cigarettes, and that Mr. Miller was getting him the cigarettes when the officer came to the door. The officer did not come inside.

Mr Gertner, the attorney, testified to the transaction at some length, and to the altercation between him and the officer in...