Jacob Stahl et al., Com'rs v. The State. cumstances, ignorance affords no sufficient excuse. The defendants acted at their peril. Besides, it sufficiently appears from the record that the jury were warranted in finding from the testimony that the defendants knew the husband, and were acquainted with his habits. The petition in error in this case was filed by Frank E. Weber and G. Alex. Weber. The record shows that as to Frank E. Weber a new trial was granted by the court of common pleas. He is not therefore a proper party to the petition in error, as no judgment was rendered against him; and as to him the petition in error must be dismissed, leaving it to stand as to G. Alex. Weber. Alexander Weber is not a party to the proceeding in error. We are of the opinion, as before stated, that as to him the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted; but we are powerless to act in his behalf, for the reason before stated; that he is not before us as a plaintiff in error. We would permit him by amendment to join in the proceeding, did not the record show that final judgment was rendered by the court of common pleas on the 18th day of March, 1895, more than six months since. The period within which a petition in error may be filed has therefore expired, and it is too late for him to seek relief by petition in error. It follows that the judgment of the court of common pleas must be affirmed, with costs, but without penalty; and such is the judgment of this court. James E. Pilliod, for plaintiff in error. C. S. Curtis, for defendant in error. (Sixth Circuit-Wood Co., O., Circuit Court--Nov. Term. 1895. ) Before Haynes, Scribner and Price, JJ. (Judge Price, of the Third Circuit, taking the place of Judge King. ) JACOB STAHL, SAMUEL KNIGHT and JAMES GIBSON, Commissioners of Wood County, Ohio, v. THE STATE OF OHIO. VOL. XI-3 (Copyrighted.) Jacob Stahl et al., Com'rs v. The State. Misconduct in office-Sufficiency of indictment-Plea in abatement considered-Sections 5171 and 5172 Revised Statutes not repealed -Soliciting a bribe-Forfeiture of office on conviction-Charge of the court. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Wood County. At the February term of the Court of Common Pleas of Wood county, Ohio, for the term year 1895, the grand jury presented an indictment against the plaintiffs in error charging them with official misconduct in office as commissioners of said county. Certain acts and proceedings were done and had by the commissioners in the discharge of their official duties which are charged in the indictment as official misconduct. The prosecution is founded on section 6915 of Revised Statutes, which reads as follows: "Whoever, being a county commissioner, is guilty of any misconduct in office, shall be fined not more than four hundred dollars, and forfeit his office." The accused parties each entered a plea of not guilty, and in June, 1895, were brought to trial and found guilty by a jury. A motion for a new trial was overruled, as was also a motion in arrest of judgment. Jacob Stahl was adjudged to pay a fine of $100, and as his term of office had before that time expired, no forfeiture of office was adjudged. Each of the other defendants were fined $100 and his office declared forfeited. Exceptions were taken from the first to last in the course of the trial, and error is prosecuted to reverse the judgment of the lower court to obtain a new trial. When arraigned, the defendants filed their motion to quash the indictment. That was overruled, and they filed a plea in abatement which was held bad on demurrer, and then they demurred to the indictment. The court overruled the demurrer, and exceptions were taken to these several rulings. 1 Jacob Stahl et al., Com'rs v. The State. Inasmuch as counsel argued the same objections to the indictment in support of both the motion to quash the indictment and the demurrer, we will pass upon them together, as both seem intended to raise the same questions, suggesting, however, that as to an objection reaching to the substance of the indictment, a demurrer is the proper pleading. The first count in the indictment is as follows: "The jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio, within and for the body of this county of Wood, impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire of crimes and offenses committed within the said county of Wood, in the name and by the authority of the state of Ohio, on their oaths, do find and present, that Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, late of said county, on the 3rd day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety three, in said county of Wood and state of Ohio, were then and there the county commissioners in and for said county, having been duly and legally elected and duly qualified to perform the duties of said office of county commissioners, during the term of of fice to which they had been severally elected as aforesaid; that said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson had for a long time before said 3rd day of May, 1893, been and for a long time thereafter, continued to be the county commissioners in and for said county, duly elected and qualified as aforesaid. And the said Samuel Knight and James Gibson still continue to be and now are county commissioners in and for said county, and are acting in that official capacity. That said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, as such county commissioners of said Wood county, Ohio, acting in their said official capacity, did on said 3rd day of May, 1893, resolve upon and declare their intention to erect a new court house in and for said county of Wood and state of Ohio, under and by virtue of the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of the state of Ohio, entitled 'An act to authorize the commissioners of Wood county, Ohio, to build a court house". Which said act was passed and took effect on the 2nd day of February, A. D. 1893. That thereupon, on said 3rd day of May, A. D., 1893, said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, as such Jacob Stahl et al., Com'rs v. The State. county commissioners of said county as aforesaid, did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and corruptly make and enter into a certain contract with a partnership, then and there doing business under the firm name and style of Yost & Packard, whereby they employed the said Yost & Packard to make the plans and specifications for and supervise the erection of said new court house. That prior to said last named date, to-wit; on the 28th day of February. A. D. 1893, the judges of the circuit court, in and for said county of Wood and state of Ohio, had duly and legally appointed Earl W. Merry, Frank A. Baldwin. Edward B. Beverstock and John Ault, as the Building Committee' under and in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid act of the General Assembly of the state of Ohio, to act and vote with the aforesaid county commissioners in procuring. making and approving plans, estimates and specifications for said court house, and in determining all questions in connection with the erection of said court house, all of which the said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, then and there well knew; but, they, the said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, as such county commissioners of said county as aforesaid, unlawfully, knowingly, willfully and corruptly failled, neglected, omitted and refused to act with the aforesaid building committee in the procuring of said plans and specifications for said court house, and unlawfully, knowingly, willfully and corruptly refused to permit the aforesaid building committee to act with or to vote with them the said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, as such county commissioners of said county as aforesaid, in procuring the said plans and specifications for said court house and in making the aforesaid contract therefor, and unlawfully, knowingly, willfully and corruptly prevented the aforesaid building committee from, in any manner, acting or voting or participating in the procuring of said plans and specifications for said court house and in providing for the supervision of the erection thereof. "And they, the said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, as such county commissioners as aforesaid, in the manner and by the means herein before stated, and without the co-operation therein by the aforesaid building committee, did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully and cor Jacob Stahl et al., Com'rs v. The State. ruptly make and enter into the aforesaid contract with said firm of Yost & Packard, and cause the aforesaid plans and specifications for said court house to be made by said firm of Yost & Packard, and did commence and proceed with the erection of said court house, and did cause the work of the erection and construction of said court house to be done under the supervision of said firm of Yost & Packard. And so the jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do find and say that the said Jacob Stahl, Samuel Knight and James Gibson, being county commissioners as aforesaid, are guilty of misconduct in office, in the manner and form aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio." The only objection urged in argument to this court to the indictment was the want of an allegation of venue; that in no part of the indictment which described the body of the crime, is there an allegation of the county in which the unlawful acts of the commissioners are alleged to have taken place. The general rule of criminal pleading is very familiar, that an indictment, as one of its essential features, must contain the averment of time and place, and having once been properly plead in that regard, that the use of the words then and there" as to each subsequent fact, will be a sufficient averment of time and place. If the state had taken the slight precaution to have written in this indictment these three little words, "then and there," in one or two places in their proper connection, it would have relieved the court of a great deal of labor and embarrassment in coming to its conclusion. The indictment does allege that these parties were the duly elected qualified and acting county commissioners of Wood county, and alleges that in some place-not naming the place on the 3rd day of May, 1893, they passed a resolution to erect a court house under the provisions of the special act set out in the indictment and which was passed in |