Baird v. Bray
Decision Date | 23 October 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 207.) |
Citation | 189 S.W. 657 |
Parties | BAIRD v. BRAY, Chief of Police. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Garland County; Scott Wood, Judge.
Habeas corpus by Dick Baird against George Bray, Chief of Police. Judgment for respondent, and petitioner brings certiorari. Affirmed.
Jas. E. Hogue, of Hot Springs, for appellant. A. J. Murphy, of Hot Springs, for appellee.
The petitioner, Dick Baird, was arrested for violation of an ordinance of the city of Hot Springs, regulating drumming by proprietors of hotels, rooming houses, etc. A fine was imposed by a judgment of the police court, and petitioner obtained from the judge of the circuit court a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of his imprisonment under the judgment of conviction. The case was heard by the circuit judge on the return of the writ, and an order was made, remanding the petitioner to the custody of the chief of police. The judgment is brought here, on certiorari, for review.
An attack is made on the validity of the ordinance, and that is the only question that we can consider, for we must indulge the presumption in this proceeding that there was evidence sufficient to sustain a finding as to a violation of the ordinance in question. The ordinance reads as follows:
The authority of the city of Hot Springs to pass the ordinance in question must be found, if at all, within the scope of the legislative delegation of power to municipal corporations —
"to regulate drumming or soliciting persons who arrive on trains, or otherwise, for hotels, boarding houses, bath houses or doctors; to license such drummers, and to provide that each drummer shall wear a badge plainly exposed to view, showing for whom and for what he is drumming or soliciting patronage, and to punish by fines any violation of this provision; provided, that any bona fide owner or proprietor of any hotel or boarding house may solicit patronage to his hotel or boarding house, without being required to wear a badge or pay license therefor." Kirby's Digest, § 5438.
It will be observed that the ordinance under consideration is directed at the owners or proprietors themselves. Whether or not it also includes hired drummers, we need not stop to inquire. We assume, however, that there is another ordinance of the city regulating mere drummers, that is to say, those who are not owners or proprietors, but who act as drummers or solicitors for the owners, and regulating them and...
To continue reading
Request your trial