The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-11-22


prene court sustaining the validity OK the
early closing ordinance nss been received
by Corporation Counsel BroWa- Il was
written py Judge Dunbar. but his views
are concurred In By the sntirs beach. The
decision ID As follows.
The defendant tsDpeiis ut In this easel
was complained against Ia tho municipal
court Of the city Of Seattle for the viola
ton OF ordinance No. Ali. Of the said city
OF Seattle which was an ordinance pre-
scr,Ding the limits OF time within which
intoxicating, malt. vinous. mixed or fe.-
Eentsd haao-s might .be sold. and saloons
and drinking places kept open In the city
of Seattle, ard providing penalties for the
violation thereof. Under the provisions OF
this ordinance its violation II punished By
a fine OF not less than 81. nor exceeding
$780, or by Imprisonment for period not
exceeding thirty days. or BY both such
fine and Imprisonment
And there In also . provision In the or
dinancs that any license for the sale OF
sny such liquors. granted by the city OK
Seattle Ia any persons convicted Of violat-
Ing any OF the provisions OF section
(which section prescribes the time o. clos
tngl. shall be forfeited and annuiled by
such conviction. without further action or
PROCEEDINGS OF the city council or any
other officer or department Of the city.
The defendant was arrested and de-
grounds. particularly contending that the
ordinance under which he was complained
against was invalid. The demurrer was
sustained, and the defendant discharged.
whereupon the plaintiff. tie city or SCAT
tie. petitioned for a writ OF eertiorari 10
the superior court for King county. state
of Washington. A motion to auash was
introduced and overruled. Upon the srgu-
ment OF the question upon it's merits as TO
the validity OF the ordinance. the court
held the ordinance to be valid In so far as
the inflction OF a fine and imprisonment
las concerned. but invalid as TO that por-
ton which provides for forfeiture OF the
license. Judgment was rendered, and an
appeal taken TO this court
1.-THE first contention OF appellant IL that
certiorari does not lie I'm case OF this
kind. that the ordinance. being auasi-civil
In its nature, the respondent, the city or
Seattle. had remedy by appeal We
think. under the best authorities, this IS
rot q quasi-civn action. but IT Is either
criminal or Quasi-criminaL This view Is
sustained by section All. LIST Ltilon on
Municipal Corporations, 4th edition. al
though there seems to be some conflict In
the authorities cited But under the pro-
visions OF chapter a. Laws Of 1871. and OF
section L. chapter s.. OF the Laws OF bso
and under authority OF Woodbury. vs.
Henningsen. II Wash, II. we think II Is
clear that the writ was properly issued In
this case.
.-rhe second contention Of appellant. that
the ordinance was rot properly pleaded. Is
also answered by section AS. ist Dillon on
Municipal Corporations. 4th Ed. TO the
effect that II is not necessary 10 plead the
ordinance. We think also that there was
nothing In the further contention that this
ordinance was In conflict with the suose-
quent ordinance. The subject matter OF
ha~
of the other aas the regulation or the
hours during which they should be closed.
They had no necessary relation to each
other.
The most strenuous contention OF tire
appellant is however that the lower court
erred in holding thai portion OF section
Of ordnance No. GfSl. which provides a
forfeiture % the license. VOID. while Il sus-
tained that portion which provided for a
fine and imprisonment fer violating said
ordinance. We ere inclined 10 think that
that portion which the court held TO DO
void can be eliminated without IN any way
destroying the efficacy or utility OF the
res, or the ordinance In State VS. Can
tleny. . MINI. 90. where a charter author
lzed the penalty OF fine and Imprisonment.
ar ordinance imposing N addition thereto
costs OF prosecution was declared void
IS 10 such a1dition.-but valid as to the
remainder.
1T can not be sad that the provision in
regard 10 the revokins OF the license has
a general influence over that portion Of the
ordnance which axes the penalty Of fne
and Imprisonment. because such penalty
could he imposed and lnfc-csd as fully
withoe, she~aaditionsl imposition OF re-
vokinr the license "a with T. The ans
and Imprisonment are complete penalties
within themselves. and are IN no wise de-
pendent upon the subsequent; provision Of
the ordinance with relation - The revoca-
ton OF the license aud 70 th,s De true,
thon the independent provision az th-
statute can he maintained. although thu
other par, Is held vosd. Municipality vs..
Morgan. : La. An. III: ex rarte Mayor.
etc 81 Forencs - Ala. ffs: Rau vs. Lit
tie Rock. "a Ark. SaS Ard IN NIlcock on
Cnrporstiors, la the rule 10 laid down
that ~ bylaw consist OF several als-
tins, and independent parts although one
or more Of them may be VOID the res, ar.
equally wallis ss though the VOID clauses
has been emitted See Also many oshs-
cases cited BY is, Dillon on Mauscspay
CORPORATIONS. section Al
We do not wish TO be understood as de-
ciasrz now ssa. srv portion OF the o-at-
nance Is Invalid for ss sfe case IS n-e-
serted 70 rs. :, Is necessary 70 6ate~assne
oniv tie validity * that portion fn regard
70 IRE rsrAisv % sac ard imprisonment.
we thf-k tkerr "a no merit IN the farth~-
contention tnst the ordinance IN question
Is IN ccnHlcs with THE general rnis6cr-ea--
or law 81 the state. Beach on Public Cor
porsficrs. sections q ans Ga
THE Judgment VIII he confirmed
DUNBAR. ,.
eve rerrnr.
.HCYT c J.
SCOTT +