COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 67023
CITY OF SOLON                 :
                              :
        Plaintiff-appellee    :
                              :      JOURNAL ENTRY
     -vs-                     :           AND
                              :         OPINION
STEVE GRAY                    :
                              :
        Defendant-appellant   :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
  OF DECISION:                     MAY 11, 1995        
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Criminal appeal from
                                   Bedford Municipal Court        
                                   Case No. 93-CRB-1920A
JUDGMENT:                          Affirmed.  Stay of
                                   Execution is Vacated.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee:            For Defendant-Appellant:
BLAIR N. MELLING, ESQ.             SANDER SCHWARTZ, ESQ.
City of Solon Prosecutor           840 Rockefeller Building
31 Columbus Road                   Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1306
Bedford, Ohio  44146
                               - 2 -
DYKE, J.:
     Appellant was  the  owner of  a fitness  club in  the city  of
Solon.   He  was cited  for  failure to  acquire a  permit  for the
balloon and the  attached pennants, which announced  the opening of
the  fitness  club.   The  balloon  was attached  to  a maintenance
vehicle parked  in the  lot  of the  club.   Appellant  pleaded  no
contest to the charge before the Bedford Municipal Court judge.  He
was found guilty,   fined $100.00  and sentenced to thirty  days in
jail.   The fine  was suspended  after appellant  was  found to  be
indigent.  Twenty-seven days  of the sentence were also  suspended.
The execution of sentence has been stayed pending this appeal.
     Appellant asserts one assignment of error.
                                 I
     THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE BALLOON CONSTITUTED A
     SIGN AS DEFINED IN THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
     SOLON.
     Appellant argues  that the vehicle  to which  the balloon  was
attached does not qualify as a  structure, therefore the balloon is
not a "sign" as defined in the Solon Codified Ordinance:
          As used in this chapter, "sign" means a structure or
     part thereof,  or any device  attached to a  structure or
     painted  or  represented  directly  or  indirectly  on  a
     structure, which  shall  display or  include any  letter,
     work,  model,   banner,  pennant,  insignia,   device  or
     representation used as, or which is  in the nature of, an
     announcement, direction or advertisement.
Solon Codified Ordinances 1484.02.
                               - 3 -
     The term  "structure" is not defined within the Solon Codified
Ordinances.  However,  the accepted rule of  statutory construction
holds that:
          Language employed  in a statute  should be  accorded
     its common, ordinary and usually  accepted meaning in the
     connection in which it is  used, and statutory provisions
     should be  given a  fair and  reasonable construction  in
     conformity to their general object in order to effectuate
     such object and purpose.
Mutual Building & Co. v. Efros (1949), 152 Ohio St. 369.
     The general object of  an ordinance requiring one to  obtain a
permit before erecting  a sign  is to allow  the municipality  some
control  over  the   number  and  kind   of  signs  in  the   city.
Interpreting the word structure to include a maintenance vehicle in
this case accords a common, ordinary meaning to the word as well as
effectuating the purpose behind the ordinance.
     Appellant's assignment of  error is overruled.   The municipal
court's decision is affirmed.  The trial court's order of a stay of
execution is vacated.
                               - 4 -
     It is ordered  that appellee  recover of  appellant its  costs
herein taxed.  
     The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
     It  is ordered that a special  mandate issue out of this Court
directing the Bedford  Municipal Court to carry  this judgment into
execution.  The  defendant's conviction  having been affirmed,  any
bail pending  appeal is  terminated.   Case remanded  to the  trial
court for execution of sentence.  
     A certified  copy of this  entry shall constitute  the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.  
SPELLACY, J.,        AND
NUGENT, J.,      CONCUR.
                                          ANN DYKE
                                            JUDGE
N.B.  This  entry is made  pursuant to the  third sentence of  Rule
22(D), Ohio Rules  of Appellate  Procedure.  This  is an  announce-
ment  of decision  (see Rule  26).   Ten  (10) days  from  the date
hereof, this document  will be stamped to  indicate journalization,
.