The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-12-22
STATE Sins ARE
NOT MUNICIPAL
Cites Cannot Adopt Common
wealth Code.
OPINION BY JUDGE SAYRE
Matter Projected BY Case Arising
in Birmingham.
MASS of Decisions Are Handed Down
Tuesday By Supreme Court OF Ala
bsma--Opinisn In One Case
II oustea In
Part.

IL the city ordinances do not entail
such provision.
No city can adopt. in one fell swoop,
all Of the criminal laws Of the State.
A person may sin against the, state
and not against the municipality In
which he commits the offense.
These principles were laid down BY
Justice Sayre In his decision by which
the case Of Fred Kreuihaus. who was
fined In the city courts of Birming-
ham. for violation OF the prohibition
| law. was reversed.
Kreulhaus was arrested. charged
with aiding or abetting in violation OF
the prohibition law. The arrest was
made under Warrant which charged.
specifically, thai hieulhaus had ,violat-
| ed Section sos OF the City Code of
Birmingham. Section sos says that:
| "AIl offenses that are misdemeanors
under the laws OF the State are here
! by declared to be offenses and misde-
meanors under the laws OF the State
are hereby declared to be offenses and
misdemeanors under the laws OF the
city of birmingham"
Judge Sayre says In his opinion. In
which the rest OF the court concurred.
| that the ordinance fails OF municipal
competency In toto"
The following extract from the opiu-
ion Is Indicative OF the courts ruling.
The Opinion.
Municipal Quasi-criminai ordin1
ancss. as well as ordinances OF diff
ferent character, must be clear. Ger.
tain and definite and duly promulgat.
ed. In determining what are offensee
against municipality regard can be
had to the ordinances OF the munich
pality only. We do not deny the power
to adopt DEFINITE code OF laws In }
body. but In such cases the code Of
laws adopted must be adopted as a
whole or some definite rule provided
for discriminating between those parts
included and those excluded. Power
is not conferred upon municipal cor
porations TO punish offenses against
criminal Justice OF the country. nor
to provide penalties for the enforce
ment OF public duties and the protec-
tion OF private rights which have no
relation TO the purposes for which mu-
inequalities are chartered.
| There are scores OF offenses de-
nouneed by the laws OF the State as
misdemeanors which touch upon no
municipal function whatever. There
are others which lie more vaguely up
on the border line: for example, that
section of the code which makes IL A
misdemeanor for ineiigibIe persons to
assume office. The ordinance in ques-
tion, with an exception which seems 10
recognize the necessity for discrim.
ination. so far as its terms indicate.
intended to punish as an offense
against the city every act constituting
misdemeanor under the laws ~
the State. This It clearly could not
do, land failing OF municipal competen.
cy In part, in must fail In toto.
at - not the business OF the courts
to amend municipal ordinances, on
their own ideas OF what they were In
tended to accomplish. 30 as 20 make
them conform with the powers con.
| ferred by municipal charters"
Decisions Rendered.
The following opinions were Tues
day handed down in the Supreme
Court Of Alabama:
| DOWDELL. C. j.:
Alabama Steel and Wire Company,
VS.. j. NJ. Thompson, Jr., appeal from
remanded.
| SIMPSON, j.:
| City OF Troy VS.. Western Union Tel
egraph Company. appeal from Pike
Circuit Court reversed and remanded.
Western Union Telegraph Company,
vs.. Robert Johnston. appeal from Bir-
mingham City Court; reversed and re-
manded.
ANDERSON, j.:
F. M Hudson VS.. Harvey Wright
appeal from City Court of Gadsden;
reversed and remanded.
MCCLELLAN, j.:
H. c.. Mckinney ct al. VS.. Commits
sioners Court of Bib county, appeal
from Bib Circuit Court; reversed and
| rendered.
Southern Iron and Equipment Com
pany VS.. The Holmes Lumber COM
pany, appeal from Bib Circuit Court;
reversed and remanded.
j. w. Hurst ct al, VS.. Rudder- Adams
Mill Company. appeal from Choctaw
Circuit Court; affirmed.
Jacob "A. McGehee VS.. Western Tn
ion Telegraph Company. appeal from
Butler Circuit Court; affirmed.
! Hattie /. Pope VS.. State OF Alabama,
appeal from Chiffon Circuit Court; re-
versed and remanded.
Black Warrior Coal Company vs..
Milly West ct al, appeal from Walker
Law and Equity Court; corrected and
affirmed.
MAYFIELD. j.:
John r. Tyson ct al VS.. Mary ".
Austin, appeal from Lowndes Chan
Gerry Court; affirmed.--Simpson and
Mayfield, u, dissent
Converse Bridge Company ct al VS..
Geneva County, appeal from Geneva
Chancery Court; affirmed.--Mayfield
and Sayre, J. j.. dissent.
Thomas Crausby ct al VS.. VIM
Crausby ct al, appeal from Covington
Chancery Court; reversed and remand
ed.-Dowdell, c. j.. dissents.
Lewis Whaley vs.. Sloss-Sheffield
Steel and Iron Company, appeal from
Birmingham City Court; affirmed.
City Of Birmingham vs.. Southern
Express Company, appeal from Biz
mingham City Court: affirmed.--Mc-
CIellan and Evans. ~, dissent.
G. W. Weatherly, as Admir-. etc. VS..
M. C. and ST. L Ry, appeal from Gads-
den City Court: reversed ana remand
ed-powdell, c. j. and Simpson. j.,
dissent.
Arthur e. Ritch VS.. Kilby Frog and
Switch Company, appeal from Calhoun
Circuit Court; affirmed.
Birmingham and Atlantic Railroad
Company, VS.. Laura Augusta Mattison,
pro. ami, appeal from TaIladega City
Court; reversed and remanded.
Elizabeth Elder ct al. VS.. c. c. Jones,
appeal from Clay County Court: az
firmed.-Anderson and Mayfield, IT,.
dissent.
Jacob Watkins VS.. sallis Carter ct
al. appeal from Colbert Chancery
Court; affirmed.
Mary Tobler. as Adnl'x, etc. vs.. Pho
nerr Mining and Manufacturing Com
Court; affirmed.
SAYRE. j.:
Fred. Kreulhaua VS.. The City of Bir-
mingham, appeal from Jefferson Crim-
inal Court: reversed and rendered.
D. @ Williams vs.. City OF ITALIA