Jefferson City v. Courtmire
| Decision Date | 31 January 1846 |
| Citation | 9 Mo. 692 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | JEFFERSON CITY v. C. & F. COURTMIRE. |
ERROR TO COLE CIRCUIT COURT.
This was a proceeding instituted against the defendants, by the corporate authorities of the city of Jefferson, on a charge of having committed a breach of an ordinance of said city, for the suppression of riots, routs and unlawful assemblies. The trial was had before an alderman of said city by a jury of six men, by consent, who found the defendants guilty, and assessed a fine against them, upon which judgment was entered; thereupon the defendants took an appeal to the Circuit Court, and there filed their motion to dismiss the case; which having been sustained, the corporation excepted, and sued out a writ of error to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court.
The power exercised by the alderman in this case is claimed for him by virtue of the provisions of the ordinance above referred to, and is said to be within the rights vested in the corporate authorities by the charter granted them by the General Assembly of this State. See an ordinance passed by the board of aldermen, May 7, 1839, entitled “an ordinance to suppress riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies;” also, the charter of the city of Jefferson, passed at the session of 1839-40, p. 307, §§ 7, 12.
The fourth section of the ordinance vests in the mayor, any alderman, or justice of the peace, of the city, the jurisdiction claimed in this case. The seventh section of the act of incorporation provides that, “the aldermen shall be ex-officio conservators of the peace throughout the city, and shall within the same, have all the powers and jurisdiction vested in justices of the peace in matters of a criminal nature and shall exercise and perform all powers and duties which may be vested in, or required of them by ordinance.” The powers and jurisdiction of justices of the peace, referred to in the foregoing section, must mean those conferred by the general law of the land, and not such as might be given by ordinance. This is obvious, for no new or enlarged power had been conferred on the justices of the peace residing within the corporate limits, by the act of incorporation, nor any authority conferred on the mayor and board of aldermen to enlarge their jurisdiction. What jurisdiction then, under the general law, have justices of the peace over the offense charged against the defendants? An answer to this question will determine the jurisdiction of the mayor and board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Buren v. Wells
...Dig., secs. 1887-8; Hempst., 201. See also 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (2d ed.), sec. 302; 35 Ga. 145; 7 La. An., 651; 2 Doug. (Mich.), 334; 9 Mo. 692; 29 Mo. OPINION BATTLE, J. In the first case the facts are as follows: Wells was accused and convicted, before a justice of the peace of Crawford......
-
City of St. Louis v. Schoenbusch
...unless clear and express authority to that effect is given, not in conflict with the constitution and laws of the state. City v. Courtmire, 9 Mo. 692; City Bentz, 11 Mo. 61; City v. Cafferata, 24 Mo. 96; State v. Cowan, 29 Mo. 335; Roach v. VanRiswick, 8 Rep. 815; Long v. Taxing Dist., 71 T......
-
The State v. Gustin
...Pilot Grove v. McCormick, 56 Mo.App. 530; R. S. 1889, sec. 4055; State v. Wonderly, 17 Mo.App. 597; State v. Cole, 48 Mo. 70; Jefferson City v. Courtmire, 9 Mo. 692. P. J. Burgess, J., concurs; Sherwood, J., absent. OPINION GANTT, P. J. The defendant was indicted at the May term, 1897, of t......
-
City of St. Louis v. Hoffmann
... ... 461; Rector v. State, 6 Ark. 187; Smith v. San ... Antonio, 17 Tex. 643; Slaughter v. People, 2 Doug ... (Mich.) 334; Jefferson City v. Courtmire, 9 Mo ... 692; State v. Cowan, 29 Mo. 330; Simmons v ... State, 75 Oh. St. 346; City of Fremont v ... Keating, 96 Oh. St ... ...