230 N.E.2d 693
No. A-211904Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County.
Decided June 27, 1967.
Administrative law — Witnesses — Right to counsel — Duty to advise — Section 119.13, Revised Code — Failure not grounds for reversal.
The failure of an administrative tribunal to advise a witness, not a party to the proceeding, of his right to representation by counsel under Section 119.13, Revised Code, is not a
Page 228
ground upon which the losing party may obtain a reversal of the order rendered therein.
Mr. Richard J. Morr, for appellants.
Mr. James E. Rattan, for appellees.
KEEFE, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the Liquor Control Commission dated June 30, 1965, which suspended permits held by Smith and Doris Kelly for having sold intoxicating liquor to a minor in violation of provisions of the Liquor Control Act.
I have considered the entire record in this case and conclude that the order of the liquor control commission is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. The commission’s order must be affirmed.
Counsel for the appellants strongly urges upon me as a basis for a reversal of the commission’s order, Section 119.13, Revised Code, entitled “Representation of Parties.” The final paragraph of this section provides:
“At any hearing conducted under Sections 119.01 to 119.13, inclusive, Revised Code, a witness, if he so requests, shall be permitted to be accompanied, represented, and advised by an attorney, whose participation in the hearing shall be limited to the protection of the rights of the witness, and who may not examine or cross-examine witnesses, and the witness shall be advised of his right to counsel before he is interrogated.”
The complete record which has been certified to this court from the liquor control commission fails to indicate that the witnesses at the commission hearing were advised of their right to counsel before interrogation, as required by Section 119.13, Revised Code. The certified record being silent in this respect, let us assume for the sake of argument that the witnesses were not so advised. Appellants contend that this omission at the hearing constitutes such error as entitles them to a reversal of the commission’s order.
“The primary and paramount rule in the interpretation or
Page 229
construction of statutes is to ascertain, declare, and give effect to the intention of the legislature if it is possible so to do.” 50 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, Statutes, paragraph 169.
“It is the generally accepted rule that resort may be had to the title of an act as an aid in interpreting it where the subject matter of the act is of doubtful meaning, and this is the rule in Ohio. * * * The title of an act may be utilized for determining the purpose which induced the enactment of the law, which purpose may be considered in arriving at a correct interpretation of its terms.” 50 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, Statutes, paragraphs 259, 260.
The purpose of Section 119.13, Revised Code, is principally to provide for representation of “parties,” and co-ordinately to provide for representation of witnesses at administrative hearings. The right to representation which this section gives to parties and witnesses is for their own protection and safeguard against self incrimination and not for the benefit of others. In other words, the permit holders (the appellants in this case) do not have such standing as to complain about the failure to advise a witness (other than the permit holders) of his or her rights to counsel before being interrogated. The appellants do not have such a direct or personal interest in whether other witnesses were advised of their right to counsel under Section 119.13, Revised Code, as to raise the issue effectively in support of a reversal. Possible advantages to the appellants in such a situation as this from advice to witnesses of their statutory (not constitutional) right to counsel prior to interrogation are too remote, indirect and conjectural to afford appellants sufficient standing to raise the issue. Such possible advantages were not contemplated by the legislature in passing Section 119.13, Revised Code.
The appellants, of course, do not contend that they were in ignorance concerning their right to legal representation at the hearing.
Counsel are requested to submit an appropriate entry as soon as convenient.
Order affirmed.
Page 239