The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1907-04-24

within the purview Of Section 42sT.
Code 1896, or Section 2s2 Of the Con-
stitution of 1901.
Appeal from Montgomery City Court.
Heard before Hon. A. D. Sayre.
Affirmed. Opinion by Tyson, c. ].
Dowdell. Anderson and Mcclellan. IT,.
concur.
MAYOR, ETC. OF ENsLEY v. CoHN.
Action for Violating City License Ordi-
nance.-CDecided Jan. 18th. 1901
AZ SO. Rep. S27).
l. Statutes; titles of act; constitu-
tional requirement--The title of the
act was. An act to amend Section i
of an act entitled An act to amend
Section 1 of an act entitled an act to
establish a new charter for the city OF
E. Held: A sufficient compliance
with Section as of the Constitution of
1901.
2. Same: local laws; notice of inten-
ton to apply for; sufficicncy in
this case examined, and 1t Is held that
the substance of the proposed law,
which was the altering or rearranging
of the boundaries of the city, was suf-
ficiently set forth in the notice, and the
act Is valid, although the notice stated
the proposed territorial lines which
were not followed, but were changed in
| the act as passed.
8. Same; validity: partial invalidity
Where part of an act which is OBJ
| jectionable on constitutional ground.
| can be eliminated wi&Sout affecting
| the purpose of the act or it's integrity.
1t will be DONE and the valid and un-
Objectionable part be permitted TO
| stand.
4. Licenses; Municipal corporation:
Incorporation under special act--The
4 rfo af fnn
| application to a case of q violation Of
the city ordinance for carrying on bust,
ness without license, where the city
was Incorporated by special act of the
| Legislature.
Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.
| Heard before Hon. NJ. NJ Baldwin.
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Tyson. C. u. Anderson and Mcclellan.
| ~, concur.
MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF BIR-
| MINGHAM v. O'HEARN.
Prosecution for Violating city ordi-
| nance-(Decided December 20
| 1906. 40 So. Rep. 1861
/. Municipal corporations: ordi-
| nances; violation; prosecution.-The
| statement of a cause of complaint filed
| by the City Attorney in the Appellate
| Court does not supply the defect nris-
| ing from q failure to file and furnish
| on demand of defendant q written COM
| plant in the police court.
| 2. Same; written complaint; suff1-
ciency.-The entry by a police Judge or
his docket of the charge against one
prosecuted for q violation of the city
| ordinance, cannot take the place mol
| perform the Office of a written COM
plant charging the violation.
| 3. Stakeholder the common Jaw
| by the statutes. and under the .Constf-
| tuition, one Is entitled to written
complaint setting forth the charge
| whether the prosecution is a criminal
| offense OF a civil action or partakes OF
| the nature of both.
4. Same; waiver--A person charged
with the violation of a municipal ordf-
nance, valves mis- right to demand a
written complaint If he proceeds to
trial in the police court without max
ing such demands.
s. Samoa city is not liable for
the costs of the prosecution on the nc-
Quittal of one charge with the VIOLA
ton of the city ordinance in an appel
late court
Appeal from Jefferson Criminal
Court
Heard before Hon. D. A. Greene.
Reversed and corrected, and as cor
rected affirmed. Opinion by Tyson, C. j.
HARRISON. Simpson and benson, j.,
concur.