State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 844

State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 844 | Ohio | 1923

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

The governor, after hearing had before him, re| moved Vogt from the office of mayor -of M-assilloiT *845for Misconduct, non-feasance and gross neglect of duty in office- Writs of mandamus and quo war-. ranto were asked on relation of Vogt against the governor and K, Vogt’s successor, respectively. In denying the.writs, the Supreme Court held:

Attorneys — Joseph McGhee and P. E. Dempsey, Columbus, and Elson Weffer and Milton' Haines, MassijUon, for Vogt; C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and Edward E- Corn, Ironton, for Donahey; L- C- Wiggins, Massillon, for Kirchoffer-

Whijle the greater part of the evidence ini the record is hearsay and concerns misconduct in a former term and is therefore incompetent, there is- some evidence tending to prove that because of acts in his then term of office the mayor was guilty as charged. While the court would hesitate to convict on this evidence, its province extends only to the determination of whether there was any such evidence.

Wanamaker, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ-, concur

Concurrence Opinion

MARSHALL, C. J.

(concurring in the judgment only), held: The governor’s removal of a mayor from office, after hearing had on the charges, is not to judicial inquiry,

Dissenting Opinion

JONES, J.

(dissenting-, held: The great mass of the testimony concerned the mayor’s acts in a previous term and was incompetent. Without it the governor would not have removed the mayor.