City of St. Louis v. Gust Cool

• Decision Date: 26 May 1910
• Citation: 128 S.W. 759,228 Mo. 209
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. GUST COOL
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

128 S.W. 759

228 Mo. 209

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. GUST COOL

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

May 26, 1910

Error to St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. -- Hon. Hiram N Moore, Judge.

Affirmed.

Chas W. Bates and B. H. Charles for plaintiff in error.

Randolph Laughlin for defendant in error.

OPINION

FOX J.

The defendant in error was convicted in the First District Police Court of the city of St. Louis, of a violation of an ordinance of said city, entitled, "An ordinance in revision of the ordinances of the city of St. Louis," being General Ordinance No. 19991, chapter 23, article 2, sections 1708 and 1710. The complaint alleged that: "In the city of St. Louis, State of Missouri, on the 15th day of June, 1905, and on divers other days and times prior thereto, the said Gust Cool, being the owner and driver of a two-horse wagon, did then and there, and on said other days, drive and cause to be driven said vehicle from place to place, on Seventh and Olive streets, which said streets were then and there public streets of said city, and did use and cause to be used said streets for the purpose of trade and traffic, and for private purposes with said vehicle so driven as aforesaid, without first having paid for and obtained a license thereon from the city collector of said city; contrary to the ordinance in such case made and provided."

Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. The case was submitted to said court without the intervention of a jury, the parties offering and the court receiving in evidence the following stipulation, together with the documentary evidence therein described:

"The parties to the above cause hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

"This cause shall be submitted to the court as follows: The defendant will admit, and does hereby admit, the averments of fact contained in the plaintiff's complaint, statement or petition, and will rest, and does hereby rest his defense on the proposition that the ordinance on which the plaintiff's case is predicated is void for two reasons, to-wit: (1) Because it is in violation of the city charter; and (2) because it is so unreasonable and oppressive as to justify the court in declaring it void on that ground alone."

It is then stipulated by the parties that the case should be submitted to the court upon precisely the same record as in the case...