Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Ohio (Volume 83) (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911. Excerpt: ... Syllabus. and such motion sustained only upon such showing upon the part of the plaintiff as leaves no question whatever of the truth and conclusiveness of the plaintiff's evidence. A situation in which there is conflict of evidence upon any material point, or admitting of a rational doubt as to the proper order to be made, should result in the overruling of the motion. There is no error in the judgments below, and they will be Affirmed. Davis, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur. Grooms V. The State Of Ohio. Bribery and corruption--Section i33i4, General Code--Exclusion from the right of suffrage--Of one who sells his vote--Section 4 of Article V of the Constitution. Section 13314, General Code, providing for the exclusion from the right of suffrage of one who sells his vote is within the express authority conferred upon the general assembly by Section 4 of Article V of the constitution to exclude "any person convicted of bribery, perjury or other infamous crime." (No. 12897--Decided March 7, 1911.) Error to the Common Pleas Court of Adams county. The facts are stated in the opinion. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. Mr. S. L. Patterson; Mr. John A. Eylar; Mr. C. E. Roebuck and Mr. J. R. B. Kessler, for plaintiff in error, cited and commented upon the following authorities: Brightly's Leading Cases on Elections, 134, 135, 136; Commonwealth v. Shaver, 3 Watts. & Serg. (Pa.), 338; Brown v. Railway Co., 102 Wis., 137, 44 L. R. A., 579; Knight v. Johnson, 1 N. P., N. S., 260; State v. Shock, 68 Mo., 580; 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 ed.), 1011; St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn., 253; Turnpike Co. v. Neil, 9 Ohio, 11; Shultz v. Cambridge, 38 Ohio St., 659; Bell v. Smalley, 45 N. J. Eq., 478; Bressler v. Wayne County, 32 Neb., 834; Bauer v. Bauer, 2 N. Dak., 108; United...