Case ID: ala_195/html/0079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SOMERVILLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte City of Birmingham v. Brown.
    Violating Municipal Ordinance.
    (Decided December 16, 1915.
    70 South. 718.)
    Municipal Corporations; Ordinances; Violation; Limitation of Prosecution. — If any state statute of limitations governs a prosecution for the violation of a municipal^ ordinance, it is § 7347, Code 1907, and not § 7348, Code 1907; hence, a municipal ordinance fixing a limitation of twelve months for the violation of any of its criminal ordinances it is not in conflict with any state statute, on that subject.
    Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
    Jerome S. Brown was convicted of violating an ordinance, of the city of Birmingham, and on appeal to the criminal court of Jefferson county, the prosecution was quashed, and the city appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment was affirmed (13 Ala. App., 69 South. 263), and the city brings this appeal to review and revise the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
    Writ of certiorari granted, judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
    The petitioner, the city of Birmingham, contends that its own ordinance fixing a limitation of 12 months on prosecutions such as this is not in violation of or in conflict with any laws of the state, and must govern this case. The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, held that a prosecution for violating a city ordinance was subject to the limitation of 60 days as prescribed by section 7348, Code 1907, governing prosecutions before the justice of the peace. ■
    Romaine Boyd, and J. P. Mudd, for appellant. A. & F. B, Latady, for appellee.
   SOMERVILLE, J.

While the argument in support of the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals is not lacking in weight and plausibility, we are nevertheless quite clearly of the opinion that the conclusion is erroneous and cannot consist with the fundamental principles upon which public statutes must be interpreted and construed.

We concur in the conclusion expressed in the dissenting minority opinion, and hold that if any state statute of limitation governs a prosecution before a city recorder it is section 7847, and not section 7348; and therefore the city ordinance fixing a limitation of 12 months is not in conflict with any state law on this subject.

The writ of certiorari will be awarded, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed, and the cause remanded for disposition accordingly.

Writ granted. All the Justices concur.