Case ID: scl_18/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Johnson J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City Council of Charleston v. George Chur.
    A City Ordinance, passed in 1824, prescribed the mode and terms of granting licences for retailing spirituous liquors, and a distinct clause imposed a penalty for retailing without a licence : Another ordinance passed in 1828 re-enacted the clause last mentioned, in its terms, except that the penalty was reduced ; but the latter ordinance contained no provisions for the granting of licenses. Held, that the offence of retailing without a licence is fully defined by the ordinance of 1828; and that in an action to recover the penalty, it is sufficient to charge the offence as against that ordinance only.
    In an action to recover the penalty imposed by a city ordinance, it is not necessary to produce any evidence of the promulgation of the ordinance. vide City Councils. Truchelut, 1 N. &M. 227, Com. Dig. By-laws, B. 5. Kyd on Corp. 103.
   Per Johnson J.

affirming the judgment of the Recorder, in the City Court, April Term, 1830.

O’Neai.i, J. and Harper J. concurred.