Case ID: ala_42/html/0630-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BYRD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAYOR, &c., OF CITY OF MOBILE vs. JONES.
    [PEOCEEDING TO BECOVEE A PINE.]
    1. In a suitby Mayor, cfc., of Mobile to recover afine; defendant not a competent witness. — In a proceeding in the circuit court, by the Mayor, &c., of the City of Mobile, against a defendant to recover a fine for the violation of a city ordinance, the defendant is not a competent witness for himself, under § 2704 of the Revised Code.
    On the 22d May, 1869, Jones, the appellee, was brought before the Mayor of Mobile, and fined $50 for a violation of a city ordinance. The defendant gave bond and appealed to the circuit court, where a trial was had de novo 
      on a complaint filed by tbe Mayor, &c., of Mobile. On the trial in this court the defendant was allowed to testify in his own behalf, against the objection of the plaintff. iThere was a judgment for the defendant, and an appeal by the Mayor, &c.
    O. E. Moulton and Wm. Boyles, for appellant.
    Cuthbert, contra.
    
   BYRD, J.

In the case of Brown v. Mayor, &c., of Mobile, 23 Ala. 722, this court held that the proceedings for the recovery of fines or penalties for the violation of city ordinances, are quasi criminal in their character. And § 2704 of the Code being in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed, (Sedgw. on St. & Con. Law, 314, and 315 ;) and although the proceeding in this case is quasi criminal, we have come to the conclusion that the appellee was not a competent witness for himself. The court therefore erred in permitting him to testify against the objection of the appellant, and the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.