Summary
In Edwards v. Court of Common Pleas of Scioto Co. (1963), 175 Ohio St. 251, 252, the Ohio Supreme Court held that relators were not entitled to relief pursuant to a writ of prohibition on the basis of erroneous indictments, insofar as they had an adequate remedy by way of appeal.
Summary of this case from Harris v. SweeneyOpinion
No. 38065
Decided October 23, 1963.
Prohibition — Writ denied, when — Remedy available in ordinary course of law — Criminal law — Validity of indictment questioned.
IN PROHIBITION.
This proceeding in prohibition was instituted in this court. Relators allege in their petition that they are defendants in causes pending in the Common Pleas Court of Scioto County, which causes are based on alleged indictments returned against them; that respondents are acting as judges of that court; that relators appeared before the court and objected to its jurisdiction over the actions for the reason that the special grand jury which returned the alleged indictments had no legal existence; that the objections were overruled; and that the causes will proceed to trial unless prohibited by this court.
Relators allege that their remedy of proceeding to trial on the merits and subsequently prosecuting appeal is not an adequate remedy and pray for a writ of prohibition restraining respondents from proceeding with the hearing of the causes and the issuing of any further orders of judgment therein.
A demurrer has been filed to the petition on the ground that the facts therein contained do not constitute a cause of action.
Mr. Richard L. Eisnaugle, Mr. J. Alden Staker, Mr. Ernest G. Littleton and Messrs. Miller, Searl Fitch, for relators.
Mr. Lowell C. Thompson, for respondents.
Relators are afforded an adequate remedy by way of appeal. This court will ordinarily, in the exercise of its discretion, deny a writ of prohibition where relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Masterson, v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 164 Ohio St. 312, 316. See State, ex rel. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., v. Industrial Commission, 162 Ohio St. 302.
The demurrer to the petition is sustained and a writ of prohibition denied.
Writ denied.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.