City of Winona v. Burke
| Decision Date | 15 December 1876 |
| Citation | 23 Minn. 254 |
| Parties | CITY OF WINONA <I>vs.</I> JAMES BURKE. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The defendant was tried before a justice of the peace in and for Winona city and county, on a complaint charging him with maintaining a nuisance in the said city, "contrary to the provisions of an ordinance of this city, entitled an ordinance to prevent and abate nuisances." This was the only mention of the ordinance in the complaint, nor was any proof of it made at the trial. The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that no offence was charged in the complaint, and for want of proof of the violation of any ordinance of the city, no ordinance of the city having been offered in evidence. The motion was overruled, and an exception taken. The justice found the defendant guilty, and imposed a fine of $15 and costs; whereupon the defendant caused the action to be removed to this court by certiorari.
J. E. Robinson and J. W. Dyckson, for defendant.
O. B. Gould, for plaintiff.
The defendant was convicted in the court below for the alleged violation of a city ordinance. On the trial no proof of the ordinance was made, and the defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution on that ground, which motion was denied. It is claimed on behalf of the city that, because of Laws 1873, c. 68 — which provides that, when the "by-laws, ordinances, etc., of any city * * * have been or shall hereafter be printed and published by authority of the corporation, the same shall be received in evidence in all courts and places without further proof" — the court will take judicial notice of the existence of the ordinance, without proof. Such was not the intention of the act, as is clear from its language, and does not affect the necessity of proving the ordinance. Courts do not take judicial notice of city ordinances. Garvin v. Wells, 8 Iowa, 286; Goodrich v. Brown, 30 Iowa, 291. Such ordinances should be pleaded and proved.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kusick
... ... not, in the absence of a statutory command, take judicial ... notice of village or city ordinances. City of Winona v ... Burke, 23 Minn. 254; State v. Oleson, 26 Minn ... 507, 5 N.W ... ...
-
State v. Kusick
...The rule is that courts do not, in the absence of a statutory command, take judicial notice of village or city ordinances. Winona v. Burke, 23 Minn. 254;State v. Oleson, 26 Minn. 507, 5 N. W. 959. But if the statute requires judicial notice of them to be taken proof is unnecessary. State v.......
-
State v. Kusick
...The rule is that courts do not, in the absence of a statutory command, take judicial notice of village or city ordinances. City of Winona v. Burke, 23 Minn. 254; State v. Oleson, 26 Minn. 507, 5 N. W. 959. But, if the statute requires judicial notice of them to be taken, proof is unnecessar......
-
Town Of Moundsville v. Velton.
...defendant. J. B. McClure and D. B. Evans for plaintiff' in error, cited 1 Dill. Mini. Corp. §§ 413, 422; Abb. Tr. Ev. 40, 470; 30 la. 291; 23 Minn. 254; Acts 1889, c. 4, s. 15; 118 IT. S. 356, 369; 96 UI. S. 107; 110 U. S. 516; 115 U. S. 512, 519; Dent v. State of W. Ya. Id.; 21 W. Ya. 796,......