Adams v. The Mayor Of The City Of Albany

• Decision Date: 30 June 1859
• Citation: 29 Ga. 56
• Parties: Bennett Adams, plaintiff in error. vs. The Mayor oF The City of Albany, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 Ga. 56

Bennett Adams, plaintiff in error. vs. The Mayor oF The City of Albany, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JUNE TERM, 1859.

Certiorari, in Dougherty Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, at chambers.

The facts of this case are as follows:

Bennett Adams was brought up before the Mayor of the city of Albany (the honorable Richard F. Lyon), on the charge of selling spirituous liquors in quantities over one quart and permitting the same to be drunk in his house. Defendant objected to being tried by the Mayor alone, claiming and insisting that he was entitled, under the charter of said city, to be tried by the Mayor and Council. This objection was overruled, and the trial proceeded before the Mayor alone.

It appeared from the evidence that Adams was the owner of a wagon-yard, in said city, upon which was a house with two rooms, one of which he used for a grocery store, and the other was for the accommodation of the wagoners; there was no door or other opening between the rooms; that wagoners, camping in the yard, would frequently purchase a quart of liquor and carry it into the room occupied by them, and there drink it, and that other persons had purchased the same quantity and went into the wagoners' room and drank it.

Upon this proof, defendant moved to quash the proceeding, upon the ground that the ordinance for the violation ofwhich he was being tried, providing that no liquor over a quart shall be sold and drank in the vendor\'s house, was a violation of a private vested right, and repugnant to the statutes of the State and therefore void. The motion to quash was overruled and defendant fined twenty-five dollars. To which rulings and judgment defendant excepted, and applied to the honorable Alexander A. Allen, judge of the superior court, for a writ of certiorari to correct and reverse said judgment. The judge refused the application and defendant excepted and assigns error, etc.

Strozier & Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Greenlee Butler, contra.

By the Court.—Stephens, J., delivering the opinion.

Was the ordinance a valid one? The authority for it must be derived from the charter of the city, either the original or amended charter. The only clause in the old charter, claimed as conferring the power to pass this ordinance, is the one conferring power in general terms, to pass all by-laws, ordinances, etc., not inconsistent with the Constitution and State laws. But this ordinance is inconsistent with a State law. A statute declares in effect that every citizen may sell liquor to white people in quantities of a quart or more, with but one single restriction, and that is if he sells less than a gallon he must first take an oath not to sell to negroes. This is the result of the statute. It is not a case where State law is silent. The State has spoken....