Case Name: City Council of Charleston v. George Chur
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-02
Citations: 2 Bail. 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: City Council of Charleston v. George Chur.
Judges: O’Neai.i, J. and Harper J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 164–164

Head Matter:
City Council of Charleston v. George Chur.
A City Ordinance, passed in 1824, prescribed the mode and terms of granting licences for retailing spirituous liquors, and a distinct clause imposed a penalty for retailing without a licence : Another ordinance passed in 1828 re-enacted the clause last mentioned, in its terms, except that the penalty was reduced ; but the latter ordinance contained no provisions for the granting of licenses. Held, that the offence of retailing without a licence is fully defined by the ordinance of 1828; and that in an action to recover the penalty, it is sufficient to charge the offence as against that ordinance only.
In an action to recover the penalty imposed by a city ordinance, it is not necessary to produce any evidence of the promulgation of the ordinance. vide City Councils. Truchelut, 1 N. &M. 227, Com. Dig. By-laws, B. 5. Kyd on Corp. 103.

Opinion:
Per Johnson J.
affirming the judgment of the Recorder, in the City Court, April Term, 1830.
O'Neai.i, J. and Harper J. concurred.