
    CINCINNATI (city) v SANDOW
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
    No. 3880.
    Decided April 27, 1931
    J. D. Ellis, City Solicitor, and H. J. Wernke and F. T. Bartlett, Assistant City Solicitors, for Cincinnati (city).
    Sol Goodman, Cincinnati, for Sandow.
   HAMILTON, J.

The ordinance provides:

“Upon the conviction of any person for violating any of the provisions of this ordinance, the trial court may, in addition to and independent of all other penalties provided for herein, prohibit such person from operating or driving a motor vehicle for a period of not to exceed six months; * * *”

The fine and suspension were, therefore, within the provisions of the ordinance.

Sandow prosecuted error to the Court of Common Pleas from the judgment of the Municipal Court. Upon consideration, the Court of Common Pleas found that part of the sentence, imposing upon the plaintiff in error suspension of his driving rights invalid, and to the extent that the Municipal Court undertook to inflict a penalty of suspension, the judgment of the Municipal Court was reversed, but affirmed in all other respects.

From that judgment of the Common Pleas Court, the City of Cincinnati prosecutes error to this court.

An examination of the record and the law leads us to the conclusion that the Municipal Court did not commit any error in the judgment rendered.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas holding invalid the suspension of Sandow’s driving rights is reversed, and the judgment of the Municipal Court of Cincinnati is in all respects affirmed on authority of: The Village of Struthers v Sokol and The City of Youngstown v Sandela, 108 Oh St, 263, and City of Youngstown v Evans and In Re Brown, reported in 121 Oh St, 342.

ROSS, PJ, and CUSHING,^J, concur.  