State v. Langenstroer
| Decision Date | 14 October 1902 |
| Citation | 67 Ohio St. 7,65 N.E. 152 |
| Parties | STATE v. LANGENSTROER. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Exceptions from court of common pleas, Hamilton county.
One Langenstroer was convicted of violating the pure food law and brought error to the common pleas. Judgment reversed, and the state brings exceptions. Overruled.
The case in court of common pleas, where the exceptions were taken, was a proceeding in error to reverse the judgment of a justice of the peace of Hamilton county. The judgment of the justice was rendered against Langenstroer on the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of violating a section of the so-called pure food laws, in that he had sold oleomargarine containing coloring matter. A motion for new trial was overruled by the justice, and, on application of the defendant, time not exceeding 10 days was given for the preparation and signing of a bill of exceptions. A bill of exceptions was prepared and duly signed within the time allowed, and error was prosecuted in the court of common pleas to reverse the judgment of the justice of the peace which bill of exceptions, the original papers, and a transcript of the docket entries were filed with a petition in error in that court; but the transcript and original papers were not attached to the petition in error when filed but by permission of the court they were so attached before the case was heard. The court of common pleas reversed the judgment of the justice because of error committed in impaneling the jury, and also for error in the admission of testimony on the trial. (1) It is contended in behalf of the exceptions that the justice had no authority to give time after the trial for the preparation and signing of a bill of exceptions, and therefore the court of common pleas had no right to consider it, or any ruling contained in it, and that, as the grounds stated for reversal could appear only by a proper bill of exceptions, the reviewing court was without jurisdiction to pass upon them. (2) It is further contended that the plaintiff in error in the lower court, Langenstroer did not comply with the provisions of section 7358, Rev. St by attaching to the petition in error the transcript and original papers belonging to the case. (3) The state makes the additional claim that the only grounds for a new trial before a justice of the peace are those named in section 6560, Rev. St., while, on the contrary, it is contended for defendant in error in this court that in criminal cases before a justice of the peace, where he has power to render a final judgment, the defendant may ask a new trial on any or all the grounds contained in section 7350, Rev. St.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under the provisions of section 6565, Rev. St., a party on trial before a justice of the peace, charged with a misdemeanor over which the justice has final jurisdiction, may except to his decisions upon matters of law arising in the case; and, if such party except at the time of the decision, he may request and have time, not exceeding 10 days from the date of the decision, within which to prepare and have signed his bill of exceptions. Said section embraces criminal as well as civil cases.
2. It is not essential to the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas to consider such bill of exceptions that the transcript and original papers in the case be attached to the petition in error when the same is filed; but the filing of such transcript, bill of exceptions, and other necessary original papers, if within the statutory period, gives such reviewing court jurisdiction, and it may permit the same to be attached before the cause is heard. State v. Ransick, 56 N.E. 1024, 62 Ohio St. 283, approved and followed.
O. J. Renner, for the State.
Edward M. Ballard, for defendant in error.
PRICE, J. (after stating the facts).
In the trial of Langenstroer before the justice of the peace and a jury on a charge of violating one of the sections of the pure food statutes, certain exceptions were taken by him to rulings of the court in empaneling the jury, and exceptions also taken to rulings made on the introduction of the testimony. After a verdict of guilty, the defendant obtained time not exceeding 10 days within which to prepare and have signed his bill of exceptions. The bill was duly signed within the time allowed, and, with a petition in error and the original papers, it was filed in the court of common pleas. It was urged in that court, as it is here, that the bill of exceptions had no vitality, because it was signed after the close of the trial, and the justice had no authority to give time for its preparation and signing. This is the first subject for our consideration, and yet it cannot now be regarded as an entirely open question in this court. At one time there was no provision for a bill of exceptions at a trial before a justice of the peace and under the practice of those days, an exception to a decision of law in the case must be stated in the docket entries, if it was to be reviewed on error prosecuted in the court of common pleas. This method was changed in later years by providing that a bill of exceptions might be taken at the trial, but, in order to give it validity, it must, after being signed, have been copied on the docket of the justice, and a transcript thereof filed in the reviewing court, in order to present the questions for review. To dispense with the recording of such bill of exceptions upon the docket, section 6565, Rev. St., provided for the preparation, signing, and filing of the bill containing the exceptions, with the other papers in the case, and that, if the excepting party desired time in which the prepare the bill and have it signed, it was legal for the justice to give such time, within the stated limit. This rule has been continued, with slight changes, since the amendment of March 29, 1883. The last amendment was made to the above section April 12, 1898, and it provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial