
    Joseph Williams v. The State of Ohio.
    Proceedings in error to reverse the sentence of a police court are regulated by the municipal code, and there is no authority for reversing such sentence, on the ground that the conviction was against the weight of evidence.
    Motion for the allowance of a writ of error to the police-court of Cincinnati.
    Joseph Williams was convicted in the police court of Cincinnati, under the act of April 11,1878, for promoting a scheme of chance called “ lottery.” On the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken, in which all the testimony was set out. A motion for a new trial, on the ground that the conviction was contrary to the evidence, was overruled and exception taken. An application was made to the Court of Common-Pleas for a writ of error, which was refused. Application is now made to this court for a writ of error, on the ground, that the conviction and judgment of the police court were-contrary to the evidence.
    
      Dodds Wilson, for the motion.
   By the Court.

Proceedings in error to review the “ final conviction or sentence ” of police court are regulated by the provisions of the municipal code, sections 179, 180, 181. By these provisions, there is no authority for taking an exception to the overruling of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict or finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or for setting out the whole of the testimony in a bill of exceptions, if such motion be overruled. A reviewing court may not, therefore, weigh the •testimony offered on the trial in the police court for the purpose of determining whether the conviction was right. If testimony tending to prove each of the material allegations of the information be offered, the verdict or finding -of the court upon the facts is final.

The municipal code, having created police courts, prescribed specially the mode of reviewing their decisions; hence, we think the legislature did not intend that the •general provisions of the criminal code in relation to reviewing criminal proceedings should apply to police courts. This conclusion is strengthened in view of the fact that both codes were considered and matured by the general assembly at the same time. The municipal code was passed May 7, 1869, and took effect July 1,1869. The criminal code was passed May 6,1869, and took effect August 1,1869.

Motion overruled.  