The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-11-05
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Holds That Mayors Courts Have No
Jurisdiction in Cases Of Gamb-
ling, Selling Liquor, Etc.
Anderson Mail.


gambling, selling liquor, etc. AS the
decision caused 50 much comment at
the time it was announced, the full
text is published below.
The case will be taken to the su-
prene court by the city, and in the
meantime the police Of the city Will
continue to bring cases in the police
court for gambling, selling Liquors,
etc, whenever such cases come to
their attention.
The text of Judge Aldirch's deci-
sion is as follows:
The State Of South Carolina,
County Of Anderson,
In the Court Of General Sessions.
The City Of Anderson, against NJ.
SeIgman, B. Hillman and lsadore
Geisberg.
Indictment for Gambling.
This case comes before the court OF
general sessions for Anderson coun-
ty upon an appeal from the mayor s
court, upon a trial, conviction and
sentence Of the defendants IN that
court for the violation of an ordl-
nance Of the city Of Anderson against
gambling.
There are several grounds OF ap-
peal, but the only one considered by
the court in sustaining the appeal
and vacating and setting aside the
iu6gment below is upon the question
Of jurisdiction. Il being eontended
by the appellants and held by the
court that the measure of the Jurls-
diction of municipal court Is the
;, Jurisdiction Of a magistrates court,
and since a magistrate under the
laws Of this State is without Juras-
diction to try and punish one for the
offense of gambling, fortiora, a
municipal court is likewise without
suen jurisdiction. The statute gov
erning the question is found in Sec
ton 2O03 of the civil code and is as
follows:
1.-The intendants or mayors OF the
cities and towns Of this state
shall have all the powers and author
itv of magistrates in criminal cases
within the corporate limits and po-
lice jurisdiction Of their respective
.;t;oc and towns etc 4"
It being conceded that magistrate
has no jurisdiction Of the ofense OF
gambling, and the jurisdiction Of the
MAYORS court being regulated by the
STATUTE above quoted it has no Jur1s-
diction either, unless it is acquired
somewhere else. 1t is contended by
the respondent that such power and
authority is conferred by the act OF
1898. re-enacted. as section 1899 civil
code and which is as follows:
.:The city councils and town eoun-
ellis Of the cities and towns OF the
sts.e shall. in addition to the powers
conferred by their respective char
tiers. have power and authority to
make, ordain and establish all such
rules, bylaws, regulations and or
dinances respecting any subject as
shall appear to them necessary and
proper for the security, welfare and
convenience of such cities and towns,
or for preserving health, peace, or
der and good government within the
same. And the said city or town
council may fix fines and penaF1es
for the violation thereof, not exceed
ING one hundred dollars fine or thur
ty days Imprisonment: Provided
That such rules, bylaws and ordln-
ances shall not be inconsistent with
the laws Of this state"
IF we construe this act to mean
that town councils in addition to the
offenses municipal courts already
have Jurisdiction Of, may make pc
ma. such Other matters as are not al
=, ready criminal by state statutes ana
the common law and placed beyond
the jurisdiction of magistrates, there
would b. no Inconsistency between
this act and the act limiting the Ju-
risdiction to that Of a magistrate $
court the construction eontended by
the city would impure TO the lesls-
lature the intention to confer upon
town councils the power to take TO
themselves the jurisdiction not only
of those offenses expressly ex-
cepted ia the first act, Sec. 1892
bv simply restricting the punishment
within the prescribed Limits, but to
acquire jurisdiction of every ofenss
in the whole range Of the criminal
law, including murder, manslaugnter'
burglary, arson and all other telo-
11N,, ~ ~