City of Centerville v. Miller
| Decision Date | 24 October 1881 |
| Citation | 10 N.W. 293,57 Iowa 56 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE v. MILLER |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Appanoose District Court.
THE defendant was convicted in the mayor's court of the city of Centerville of having violated an ordinance of the city. The ordinance in question (119) provides among other things that the keeping or controlling of any house or building within the corporate limits of the city where loud or unusual noises are permitted, or where persons are permitted to congregate and engage in the use of profane or vulgar language to the disturbance of others, is a common nuisance and that whoever is convicted thereof shall be punished.
The information charged that the defendant, within the corporate limits of the city, kept and controlled a house wherein and around which loud and unusual noises were permitted, and wherein and around which persons were permitted to congregate and make use of loud, profane, and vulgar language to the disturbance of others, and contrary to the provisions of the ordinance.
From the conviction in the mayor's court the defendant appealed to the District Court, and demurred to the information on the sole ground "that the court has no jurisdiction of the offense charged." The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant elected to stand thereon, and judgment was rendered against him as provided in the ordinance. He appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Geo. D Porter, for appellant.
Vermillion & Vermillion, for appellee.
It is provided by statute that cities have the power to prevent riots, noise, disturbance or disorderly assemblages; to suppress and restrain disorderly houses, houses of ill-fame billiard-tables, nine or ten-pin alleys or tables, and ball-alleys, and to authorize the destruction of all instruments and devices used for the purpose of gaming." Code, section 456.
The appellant insists the ordinance is void because the offense described therein and charged in the information is punishable under the laws of the State, and therefore the city cannot provide for the punishment of the same offense. No statute is cited defining and punishing the offense charged in the information, and we have not been able to find any such.
The information does not charge an unlawful assemblage, or a nuisance as defined by statute (Code, sections 4066, 4067, 4069, 4089.) Nor does the information necessarily define such offenses. We are,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Neola v. Reichart
... ... whereupon the latter responded by calling him a son of a ... bitch. The city marshal entered at this time, and, after ... parting them, filed an information against defendant ... invalid, because prohibited by fair implication of the ... statute. In City of Centerville v. Miller, 57 Iowa ... 56, 10 N.W. 293, an ordinance denouncing the keeping of any ... house ... ...
-
Downey v. Sioux City
...fundamental that such power must be exercised so as not to infringe arbitrarily or unnecessarilyupon private rights. City of Centerville v. Miller, 57 Iowa, 56, 10 N. W. 293;Bush v. City of Dubuque, 69 Iowa, 233, 28 N. W. 542;City of Hawarden v. Betz et al., 182 Iowa, 808, 164 N. W. 775; 43......
-
Ogden v. City of Madison
...of such a house a misdemeanor, and imposing a punishment by fine and imprisonment for the offense. In the case of City of Centerville v. Miller, 57 Iowa, 56, 10 N. W. 293, the court say they are not disposed to extend the rule announced in the Mt. Pleasant Case, and remark “that they know o......
-
Downey v. City of Sioux City
... ... power must be exercised so as not to infringe arbitrarily or ... unnecessarily ... [227 N.W. 127] ... upon private rights. City of Centerville v. Miller, ... 57 Iowa 56, 10 N.W. 293; Bush v. City of Dubuque, 69 ... Iowa 233, 28 N.W. 542; City of Hawardem v. Betz, 182 ... Iowa 808, 164 ... ...