City of Louisville v. Roberts & Krieger

• Decision Date: 22 November 1907
• Citation: 105 S.W. 431
• Parties: CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. ROBERTS & KRIEGER.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

105 S.W. 431

CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. ROBERTS & KRIEGER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 22, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Criminal Division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Roberts & Krieger were prosecuted for violating a city ordinance of the city of Louisville. From a judgment of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the city court sustaining a demurrer to the warrant, the city appeals. Reversed.

A. E Richards and E. C. Underwood, for appellant.

Pryor Sapinsky & Castleman, for appellees.

BARKER J.

This proceeding originated by the issuance of a warrant against the appellees from the city court of Louisville for a violation of a general ordinance of the city of Louisville providing for the licensing of certain named businesses callings, occupations, and professions. A general demurrer to the warrant was sustained by the judge of the city court, and the city prosecuted an appeal to the Jefferson circuit court where the judgment of the city court was affirmed. From this last judgment, the city has appealed to this court.

So much of the ordinance in question as is involved in this proceeding is as follows:

"An ordinance providing for certain licenses, the fees therefor to be paid into the sinking fund of the city of Louisville.

Be it ordained by the general council of the city of Louisville:

Section 1. That hereafter the following licenses shall be paid into the sinking fund of the city of Louisville for the purposes of the sinking fund, for doing the business, following the callings, occupations and professions, or using or holding, or exhibiting the articles hereinafter named in the city of Louisville, in addition to the ad valorem taxes heretofore levied or hereafter to be levied on any species of property in the city of Louisville.

* * *

* * *

Sec. 100. Every individual, firm or corporation who intends to commence after the 1st day of September of any year the business of selling any goods, wares or merchandise, except by sample, shall first obtain a license therefor and pay in advance for the same, as follows, viz.:

If said business is commenced after the 1st day of September, and before the 2d day of January, said license fee shall be two hundred and fifty dollars.

If said business is commenced at any time after the 1st day of January and before the 1st day of May, the license fee shall be one hundred dollars.

If said business is commenced at any time between the 30th day of April and the 1st day of August, said license fee shall be fifty dollars.

Each license issued under this section shall entitle the licensee to conduct or carry on said business until the 1st day of the next succeeding September.

* * *

* * *

Sec. 108. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its publication."

The above ordinance was published December 1, 1906, and consequently became effective on that day. The warrant charges the defendants with commencing business after January, 1907, and before May, 1907, and continuing in selling goods, wares, and merchandise without obtaining a license as required by the ordinance in question. It is the theory of the appellees (1) that the ordinance is an ex post facto law as to them, and therefore void; (2) that it has...