Aderhold v. City of Anniston
| Decision Date | 06 February 1893 |
| Citation | 12 So. 472,99 Ala. 521 |
| Parties | ADERHOLD v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF ANNISTON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Anniston; B. F. Cassady, Judge.
Joseph E. Aderhold was tried and convicted before the recorder of the city of Anniston for a violation of ordinance 317, which provides that "any person who engages or participates in any fight or affray must, on conviction, be fined not less than one nor more than one hundred dollars." An appeal was taken from the judgment of the recorder to the city court, from which court the present appeal is prosecuted. Affirmed.
On the trial of the case in the city court of Anniston, the plaintiff introduced in evidence ordinance No. 317 and ordinance No. 102, which is as follows:
McLeod & Tunstall, for appellant.
John Pelham, for appellee.
The charter of the city of Anniston, as amended, (Acts 1890-91 p. 109, § 3,) provides that in cases of appeal from the recorder Two ordinances of said city, Nos. 102 and 317, were introduced and are set out in the record. The defendant was arrested, so far as is shown, without affidavit or warrant. He appeared before the recorder, at his office, at the time to which he was summoned, "to answer to the charge of disorderly conduct." He pleaded not guilty, was regularly tried on that issue, on evidence introduced on both sides, and was fined and sentenced by the recorder. He appealed to the city court of Anniston, in the manner prescribed by the charter where, as we have seen, the case is required to be tried as appeals in civil cases from justice of the peace are tried. Coming to the city court, the plaintiff filed a complaint, as in civil cases, claiming the amount of the judgment and costs imposed on defendant by the recorder for violation of said ordinance No. 317, of said city, averring that the defendant within 12 months before the 11th of November, 1891, participated in a fight, in violation of said ordinance,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dothan v. Holloway
...of the accusation against him, then that defect in the proceedings is deemed to have been waived. In the case of Aderhold v. City of Anniston, 99 Ala. 521, 12 So. 472 (1892), the defendant was arrested without any affidavit being made or an arrest warrant being issued. In the recorder's cou......
-
Smith v. State
...of the accusation against him, then that defect in the proceedings is deemed to have been waived. In the case of Aderhold v. City of Anniston, 99 Ala. 521, 12 So. 472 (1893), the defendant was arrested without any affidavit being made or an arrest warrant being issued. In the recorder's cou......
-
Young v. City of Hokes Bluff
...complaint in accord with § 12-22-113. See Ex parte Hood, 404 So.2d 717, 720 (Ala.1981), wherein the Court cited Aderhold v. City of Anniston, 99 Ala. 521, 12 So. 472 (1893), as governing "the time for filing the complaint in the circuit court." Aderhold held that a prosecuting attorney's co......
-
Brown v. State
...Ex parte Hood, 404 So.2d 717 (Ala.1981); Chaney v. City of Birmingham, 246 Ala. 147, 21 So.2d 263 (1944); and Aderhold v. City of Anniston, 99 Ala. 521, 12 So. 472 (1892). Because of this rule of law, I am of the opinion that the use of the rubber stamp was a waivable defect, if a defect at......