Bagwell v. Town Of Lawrenceville

• Citation: 21 S.E. 903,94 Ga. 654
• Parties: BAGWELL. v. TOWN OF LAWRENCEVILLE.
• Decision Date: 30 July 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

21 S.E. 903

94 Ga. 654

BAGWELL.

v.TOWN OF LAWRENCEVILLE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 30, 1894.

Amendatory Act — Sufficiency of Title—Municipal Powers—Prohibition of Illegal Liquor Sales.

1. The phrase, "An act to amend the several acts incorporating the town of Lawrenceville, " is sufficiently descriptive of the law to be amended, the amending act not undertaking to expressly repeal or modify any of the provisions contained in the acts incorporating the town of Lawrenceville, but only adding affirmative legislation, which might have been constitutionally enacted without making any reference whatever to existing laws touching that town, the sole repealing clause in the act being the usual general clause repealing all conflicting laws and parts of laws. The descriptive phrase being set out in the title of the act, it was unnecessary to repeat it in the body of the same.

2. A statutory power conferred upon a municipal corporation "to protect the health, property and person of the citizens of the town and to preserve peace and good order therein, " and "to make and pass all needful orders, by-laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations, not contrary to the constitution and laws of this state, and to prescribe, impose and enact reasonable fines and penalties, " etc., is comprehensive enough and specific enough to enable the corporation to pass and enforce an ordinance prohibiting any person from keeping a "blind tiger, " or keeping for sale, barter, or exchange any vinous, spirituous, or malt liquors, within the corporate limits of the town, there being no law of the state which prohibits or makes penal the acts to which the ordinance applies, and it not appearing that the county in which the town is situate is one in which liquors could lawfully be sold, with or without license. It is legitimately within the scope of general police powers to inhibit the keeping of intoxicating liquors for illegal sale, or the keeping of places for conducting such sales.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Gwinnett county; N. L. Hutchins, Judge.

One Bagwell was convicted of violation of an ordinance, and, upon the overruling by the superior court of his certiorari, he brings error. Affirmed.

The following Is the official report:

Bagwell, on June 3, 1S93, was tried and convicted in the mayor's court of Lawrenceville for violation of an ordinance of that town known as the "Blind-Tiger Ordinance." He took the case by certiorari to the superior court, where his certiorari was overruled, and to this he excepted. In the petition for certiorari he admitted that there was sufficient evidence to authorize the judgment of conviction, but insisted that the conviction was illegal for the following reasons: Because the ordinance in question never has been adopted by the present board or council. The court trying petitioner admitted that a new council was elected in January, 1893, for the ensuing year, and since his election said ordinance has not been adopted or published; neither was the...