
    The State of Ohio v. Rohrer.
    
      Courts—Criminal law—Term of court—Continuation into another judicial year.
    
    There is neither constitutional nor statutory prohibition on the power of the court to continue the term into another judicial year, if the public business so demand, so long as the time to which it continues does not interfere with the order of the judges, made in their annual October session, fixing the terms and the time at which such terms shall begin.
    (No. 14519
    Decided March 17, 1914.)
    Exceptions by the Prosecuting Attorney to the Decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county.
    The grand jury in and for the county of Montgomery, state of Ohio, was duly impaneled and sworn on the 1st day of December, 1913, for the October term, 1913. On the following 8th day of December, 1913, said grand jury filed its first and partial report with said court. On the following 31st day of December, the said grand jury renewed its sessions. On the following 3d day of January, 1914, the said grand jury filed its second and final report with said court, and among the indictments returned in such final report was one against David Rohrer, charging the said Rohrer with obtaining money or property by false pretenses.
    The journal discloses that on January 8, 1914, the defendant, Rohrer, entered a plea of not guilty, and that on February 13, 1914, the defendant, by leave of the court, withdrew his former plea of not guilty and entered a plea in abatement. The plea in abatement does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations contained therein, but is based upon the claim that the body purporting to be a grand jury of the court of common pleas of Montgomery county of the October term, 1913, had been dissolved by order of court and by operation of law. ■ The “order of court” relied on for the dissolution and discharge of the jury was the following journal entry:
    “It is hereby ordered that all cases not otherwise ' ■disposed of be and the same are continued to the next term of this court.
    “Thereupon the October term, A. D. 1913, adjourned sine die this 31st day of December, 1913.
    “Hon. Carroll Sprigg,
    “Hon. E. T. Snediker,
    “Hon. U. S. Martin,
    “Judges.”
    The operation of the law “relied on” is Sections 1533 and 11432, General Code of Ohio.
    ■In brief, the contention of the defendant is that the journal of the court shows a final adjournment of the October term on the 31st day of December,' and second, that the judicial year ended on the 31st day of December, and therefore the grand jury were powerless to act as a grand jury or to find or present any indictments whatsoever after such 31st day of December.
    Three days prior to the filing of the plea in abatement, to-wit, February 10, 1914, the following journal entry appears on the records of said common pleas court:
    
      “It being made to appear to the court that through an error the entry of adjournment of the October term, 1913, signed by the judges- of this court, was so drawn as to imply that, said adjournment took effect, upon the 31st day of December, 1913, when in truth and in fact said adjournment. sine die was not had, nor said entry ordering the same prepared and approved, until the third day of January, 1914, upon which date said term did in. fact end. It is therefore ordered that said former entry of adjournment be corrected to conform to the facts, and speak the truth in such a manner as to set forth on the minutes of this court the sine die adjournment of the October term, A. D. 1913, as, having.taken place upon said 3rd day of January,. 1914, upon which date said term did end; and for that purpose this entry be made nunc pro ttmc.”
    
    It is admitted by counsel in argument that the court of common pleas’ sessions in the interim between December 31, 1913, and January 3, 1914, ¡ continued to transact the regular and usual order of court business.
    To the plea in abatement the state demurred. On hearing had the demurrer was overruled. Not- desiring to plead further, the plea in abatement was*, sustained, the state took its exceptions and brings its bill into this court for the purpose of having this: court determine the law agreeably to the statutes. .
    
      Mr. Robert C. Patterson, prosecuting attorney, for the exceptions.
    
      Mr. R. Earl Van Derveer and Mr. Harry N. Routzohn, against the exceptions. •
   By the Court.

We hold that the journal entry of February 10, 1914, set aside and vacated the journal entry of December 31, 1913; that our constitution provides that all courts shall be open— that is, as public business may demand; that a great many of the counties of this state have commendably followed the plan of having one term of court-open until the succeeding term begins, to the great advantage of counsel and the public; that this common custom has existed so long and is so general as to be tantamount to the unwritten common law.

We. find neither constitutional nor statutory provision prohibiting the continuation of this custom. If it were otherwise, the common pleas courts of many counties of the state would be practically disabled as to the transaction of public business for several months at the beginning of the judicial year.

This court believes that the policy, generally adopted by the courts of common pleas in this state, of continuous open sessions until the next succeeding term formally opens should be continued and commended.

We further find that the grand jury was not dissolved and discharged on the 31st day of December, and that indictments found and presented to the court, as shown by its final report, were regularly and legally found and presented by a lawful grand mry. The plea in abatement was not well taken and the demurrer thereto should have been sustained.

Exceptions sustained.

Nichols, C. J., Shauck, Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker, Newman and Wilkin, JJ.,, concur.  