City of Hannibal v. Dudley
| Decision Date | 06 June 1911 |
| Parties | CITY OF HANNIBAL v. DUDLEY. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas; David H. Eby, Judge.
R. A. Dudley was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Hannibal, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Thomas F. Gatts, for appellant. John G. Cable, for respondent.
Defendant in this case was proceeded against in the recorder's court of the city of Hannibal for a violation of a city ordinance. From a conviction there and imposition of a fine of $3.00, he appealed to the Hannibal court of Common Pleas. After a somewhat lengthy trial before the court and a jury, at which the evidence was conflicting, defendant was again convicted and the same fine ($3.00) imposed. No instructions were asked or given. Defendant has appealed to this court.
We have held in City of Caruthersville v. Palsgrove, 134 S. W. 1032, following many cases there cited, that a prosecution for a violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal but a civil action and that the rules of court applicable to civil actions apply.
The contention of counsel for defendant in this case is, not that there was no evidence in the case to support the conviction, but that the weight of evidence is against the verdict. We might dispose of the case by pronouncing this an untenable theory. Out of abundant caution, however, and to give defendant the benefit of any doubt on the matter, we have read all the testimony, as set out in the printed abstract filed with us by appellant, and see no reason to disturb the finding of the jury and the judgment of the lower court. The verdict is sustained by an abundance of evidence. [2, 3] Its weight and the credibility of the witnesses who gave it were for the determination of the jury and the trial judge. The judgment of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours
...Mo. 40; City of Moberly v. Kervin, 234 S.W. 514; Poplar Bluff v. Hill, 92 Mo. App. 17; Springfield v. Starke, 93 Mo. App. 70; Hannibal v. Dudley, 158 Mo. App. 261; Grant City v. Simmons, 167 Mo. App. 183; East Prairie v. Greer, 186 S.W. 952; St. Louis v. Ameln, 235 Mo. 669; Ex parte Corvey,......
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours
...Mo. 40; City of Moberly v. Kervin, 234 S.W. 514; Poplar Bluff v. Hill, 92 Mo.App. 17; Springfield v. Starke, 93 Mo.App. 70; Hannibal v. Dudley, 158 Mo.App. 261; Grant v. Simmons, 167 Mo.App. 183; East Prairie v. Greer, 186 S.W. 952; St. Louis v. Ameln, 235 Mo. 669; Ex parte Corvey, 287 S.W.......
-
Village of Marble Hill v. Caldwell
...than those which obtain in criminal proceedings. See Caruthersville v. Palsgrove, 155 Mo. App. 564, 134 S. W. 1032; Hannibal v. Dudley, 158 Mo. App. 261, 138 S. W. 552. However, in a more recent case, the Supreme Court has declared that where the offense for which defendant is pursued under......
-
Village of Marble Hill v. Caldwell
... ... said, this is a criminal case, citing King City v ... Duncan, 238 Mo. 513, 142 S.W. 246, and insisting that we ... must under section 5312, ... concerned. That opinion is cited, with approval by the same ... court in City of Hannibal v. Dudley, 158 Mo.App ... 261, 138 S.W. 552. We held in Meredith v. Whillock, ... 173 Mo.App ... ...