Case ID: ga_30/html/0936-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lumpkin, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LESTERJELLE vs. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBUS.
    A party summoned to answer for an offense committed against one ordinance, cannot be proceeded against and punished by another and a different ordinance.
    
      Certiorari, in Muscogee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Workill, at May Term, 1860.
    The plaintiff in error was summoned to appear before the City Council of Columbus for a violation of the City Ordinances under the forty-fourth section. The plaintiff in error was fined the sum of ten dollars. The said Mayor fined said plaintiff in error under an Act of the Legislature passed in 1858, after the enactment of the said forty-fourth section by said Mayor and Council; and, therefore, said plaintiff in error filed his petition for certioi'ari, which was returned and argued before Judge Worrill at the last May Term, 1860, of Muscogee Superior Court.
    The Court overruled said petition for certiorari, and dismissed the same. Whereupon, said Henry L. Lesterjelle excepted, and now assigns the same for error.
    
      J. M. Russell, for plaintiff in error.
    Peabody, contra.
    
   By the Court,

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

This case is covered and controlled by the decision made at this Term in the case of the Mayor and Council of Columbus against John D. Arnold. The ground being, that a party summoned to answer for an offense committed against one ordinance, cannot be proceeded against and punished by another and a different ordinance. And upon the further ground, that the offense, itself, was not charged with sufficient distinctness.