Opinion
Nos. 34311 and 34361
Decided February 11, 1958.
Remand from Supreme Court of United States — Further consideration in light of specified decisions of remanding court, ordered — Former judgment adhered to, when.
ON REMAND from the Supreme Court of the United States.
These two causes were before this court on appeals from the Courts of Appeals for Franklin and Hamilton Counties, resulting in judgments affirming the judgments of the Courts of Appeals and reported in 164 Ohio St. 529, 133 N.E.2d 104. From those judgments appeals were taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. That court, in two short per curiam opinions ( Morgan v. Ohio, 354 U.S. 929, 1 L. Ed. [2d], 1535, 77 S. Ct., 1403, and Raley v. Ohio, 354 U.S. 929, 1 L. Ed. [2d], 1532, 77 S. Ct., 1391), vacated the judgments of this court and remanded the causes "for consideration in the light of Sweezy v New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, and Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178."
Mr. Samuel L. Devine, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Earl W. Allison, for appellee in cause No. 34311.
Mrs. Ann Fagan Ginger and Mrs. Thelma C. Furry, for appellant in cause No. 34311.
Mr. C. Watson Hover, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Carl B. Rubin, for appellee in cause No. 34361.
Mr. Louis C. Capelle, Mr. Morse Johnson, Mr. Milton H. Schmidt and Mr. Chester R. Shook, for appellants in cause No. 34361.
In compliance with the mandates of the Supreme Court of the United States, this court has considered the causes in the light of the sweezy and Watkins cases and does not find enough similarity to warrant a change in our former judgments. The former judgments of this court as reported in 164 Ohio St. 529, are adhered to.
Former judgments adhered to.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS and BELL, JJ., concur.
I have no sympathy for the attitude and conduct of these defendants. However, for the reasons briefly stated in my dissenting opinion at the time of the previous hearing of these cases, it is my firm belief that this court cannot affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in either case without adding provisions to our statutes which were never enacted by the general Assembly. Under the Ohio Constitution, this court has no such legislative authority.