Case Name: Goodman v. City and County of Denver
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1923-06-04
Citations: 73 Colo. 465
Docket Number: No. 10,615
Parties: Goodman v. City and County of Denver.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
No. 10,615.
Goodman v. City and County of Denver.
Decided June 4, 1923.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of vagrancy under a city ordinance.
Affirmed.
On Application for Supersedeas.
1. Municipal Corporations—Ordinance—Complaint. Any informality in a complaint for the violation of a city ordinance is waived by appeal to the county court.
2. Appeal and Error—Sufficiency of Evidence. The contention that the judgment, in an action for the violation of a city ordinance, is not supported by the evidence, overruled.
Error to the County Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. George A. Luxford, Judge.
Mr. J. C. Dunn, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James A. Marsh, Mr. A. L. Betke, for defendant in error.
Department One.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Burke
delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged with vagrancy in violation of an ordinance of the City and County of Denver (§ 1435 of the Municipal Code). He was tried in justice court (police division), convicted and fined $60.00. On appeal to the county court a jury was waived, defendant found guilty as charged and sentenced to jail for ninety days. To review that judgment he prosecutes this writ and asks that it be made a supersedeas.
Two questions only are raised: 1. That the sworn complaint was insufficient; 2. That the judgment is unsupported by the evidence.
1. The complaint seems to meet the requirements of section 9414 C. L. 1921. If not the informality was waived by appeal to the County Court. Saner v. People, 17 Colo. App. 307, 69 Pac. 76; Lloyd v. Canon City, 46 Colo. 195, 103 Pac. 288.
2. Both courts found the evidence sufficient and we think they were right. Defendant had been a drug addict. Whether he still was such was in dispute. He exhibited to the county judge an arm bearing undisputed marks of needle injections. An officer, experienced in such matters, explained why some of these were of very recent. date. The arm is not here and we have no special knowledge of the subject. All presumptions being in favor of the finding it is binding upon us.
The supersedeas is denied and the judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Teller and Mr. Justice Allen concur.