The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-19

ha,. ~. n .c.as d cane back tTo.-I hlj search fer a pistol the defendant was III tb DOT, where the deceased was, ana had not been previously requested by her , nus band to leave the room, then her | husband had no right to assalilt tne ue- fendant or approach him in tnreateh1hg req r,1,hs i manner. and the defendant had the right | 10 act upon appearances and seize tne | defendant or do any other reasonably 1 necessary act to prevent the huspan1 l from nflicting an injury upon the ue- | fendant" Is erroneous anu PropeiN | fused. ,,,o, o.sa charge which seeks to ln1ect new ls Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by McClellen. c. J.
 AHLRIcHs V. CITY OF cUId.MAN. | Prosecution for Violation of Municipal Ordinance Appeal from the Ci cult Court of Cullman.
 Violation of municipal ordinance; sufficiencv of complaint. An affidavit made before the mayor of municipal ity. in which the affiant states that he ''has probable cause for believing. a:id does believe that specific offense pro- hibited by an ordinance of the munich pality has been committed by the defend ant is sufficient as a complaint for the violation of a municipal ordinance:
 2 Same: sufficiency of complaint on appeal In the prosecution for the viola ton of a municipal ordinance. an Afl1-
 
 or of a municipality. though subject to demuri CT for too mcagre description or the offense charged, is sufficient to sup port a declaration filed by the municf- pality on appeal by the defendant to the Circuit Court; and the trial being de novo, 1t is of no consequence 1T de- murrer interposed to the complaint m 3. Same; departure of complaint on | appeal Where all affidavit made before l aff .ha | affiant believes that 'the offense of en- gazing the business of practictng law Tn said city for which a license Is required without having first procured ana pa1d ,H | was committed by the defendant, on ap- peal by the defendant to the Circuit Court. complaint filed filed y,.aert 6y 1as c,sS. nS. gagged in the business or profession or practicing law without having rrst pro | cured and paid for a license therefor. required by ordinance duly adopted etc
 is not departure from the cause tried | by the Mayor. ,,
 f. Same; appeal to the Circuit Court; l suficiency of lmplaint.-On an appeal 10 | the Circuit Court by a defendant from 6
 Judgment of conviction by the Mayor for | Violating a municipal ordinance, com
 pai1t filed in ,bn the dsfandant TS1 bene ~ iaW | yer engaged in the business or proIes-
 sion of practicing law in said city, witn | out having procured ana palu TOT IT. | cense therefor, license to carry on such business or profession being required bX, ordinance of said city duly adopted etc, Is sufficient and not subject to de-
 Same; sufficiency of evidence. | Where a municipal ordinance imposes
 license tax on the occupation or engaglns ns | in and carrying on the practcc ol d'
 attorney as a business in said munlci
 pa lity, in a pro secuticn filed by, said or dinance. where there is no evidence O the fact that the defendants place o | business was in said municipality, or ma
 he resided there and held himself out a
 a practicirs lawyer before that bar ou
 the Cnly evidence adduced was that h
 was a lawyer and as such practiced l!
 the trial of three cases during the montI
 specified in the complaint, the oftense
 charged against the defendant is no
 made out and the general aif'rmatlv
 charge is improperly given for the plaint
 if.
 Reversed and rcmanded.
 | Opinion by Mcclellan, C. J.