
    No. 179
    KNUDSON v. STATE
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Wood Go.
    No. 321.
    January 26, 1925.
    1277. WORD AND PHRASES—No prejudicial error when trial court changes the word “withdrawn” to “re-entered” when defendant withdraws plea of not guilty, in bill of exceptions.
    Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
   YOUNG, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Martin Knudson was arrested on an affidavit charging him with possession of intoxicating liquors in violation of the Ohio Liquor Laws; the affidavit charged a second offense. On arraignment a plea of not guilty was entered, and at the trial in the Wood Probate Court he was sentenced to pay a fine of $2000 and costs.

Attorneys—Benjamin F. James for Knudson; Roy D. Avery, Pros. Atty for State; both of Bowling Green.

This was prosecuted in error and Knudson alleges that on trial day the plea of not guilty was withdrawn for the purpose of filing a motion and demurrer directed to the affidavit. The motion and demurrer were overruled' and cause proceeded to trial. Knudson declares that no further plea was entered but the court changed the bill of exceptions by striking out the word “withdrawn” and substituting the word “re-entered.” Prior to the bringing of the cause to the Court of Appeals, Knudson brought a proceeding in mandamus in the Supreme Court where he sought a writ requiring the probate ‘ court to sign and allow what Knudson claims to be a true bill of exceptions. This writ was refused.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. No prejudical error results to Knudson because of the fact that the plea to the general issue was not entered a second time. Gormley v. State 37 OS 120. Mere change in expression in the record is immaterial.

"2. Finding that the judgment is not against the weight of the evidence the judgment will be affirmed.  