Duren v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 17 August 1906 |
| Citation | 126 Ga. 496,54 S.E. 1045 |
| Parties | DUREN. v. STEPHENS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Intoxicating Liquors—Sale of Domestic Wines—Ordinances.
While a municipality may forbid the keeping within its corporate limits, of intoxicating liquors intended for illegal sale, it has no power to adopt an ordinance which not only prohibits the keeping for sale of liquors which cannot be lawfully sold, but also undertakes to forbid the keeping of domestic wines for the purpose of sale, notwithstanding the general law which authorizes such wines to be sold under certain prescribed terms and regulations.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 29, Cent. Dig. Intoxicating Liquors, § 9.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Thomasville; C. P. Hansell, Judge.
Application by Tom Duren for writ of habeas corpus against J. J. Stephens, marshal. From an order denying the writ, Duren brings error. Reversed.
Theo. Titus, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Hammond, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, Tom Duren, was tried in the mayor's court of the city of Thomasville for an alleged violation of a municipal ordinance which declared that it should be "unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, to keep or have on hand, or in possession for sale, barter, or exchange, auy spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors within the city." Upon conviction Duren was imprisoned and placed at labor upon the streets of the city, in accordance with the sentence passed upon him. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus against the city marshal, to whose custody he had been committed, alleging that the ordinance under which he was tried and convicted was unconstitutional and void, being in conflict with the provisions of paragraph 1, § 4, of article 1 of the Constitution, to the effect that no special law shall be enacted as to any matter for which provision has been made by an existing general law. Civ. Code 1895, § 5732. In his petition for the writ of habeas corpus, petitioner insisted that the ordinance was in conflict with the general law authorizing and regulating the sale of domestic wines (Pol. Code, §§ 757, 1521, 1549; Acts 1904, p. 98), inasmuch as the ordinance undertook to prohibit the keeping of such wines for sale by any one within the limits of the city. Upon the hearing of the case the court passed an order refusing to discharge petitioner from the custody of the city marshal, and to this order exception Is taken.
It is unquestionably within the charter power of the municipality to prohibit by ordinance the keeping of intoxicating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. City of Thomasville
... ... 254, 52 S.E. 881 (3, 4); Joseph v ... Milledgeville, 97 Ga. 513, 25 S.E. 323; Mattox v ... State, 115 Ga. 212, 41 S.E. 709 (2); Duren v ... Stephens, 126 Ga. 496. 54 S.E. 1045; Papworth v ... State, 103 Ga. 36, 31 S.E. 402. So, also, an ordinance ... apparently reasonable on ... ...
-
Gravitt v. State, (No. 5937.)
... ... Griffin v. Eaves, 114 Ga. 65 [30 S. E. 913]. See, also, Moore v. Wheeler, 109 Ga. 62 [35 S. E. 1101; Duren v. Stephens, ante [126 Ga.] 496 [54 S. E. 1045]. * * * In Regopoulas v. State, 116 Ga. 596 [42 S. E. 1014], no question was made as to the remedy ... ...
-
Mcdonald v. State
...was adjudicated at the trial. Griffin v. Eaves, 39 S. E. 913. 114 Ga. 65. See, also, Moore v. Wheeler, 35 S. E. 116. 109 Ga. 62; Duren v. Stephens, 54 S. E. 1045. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 2549.] 2. Same. In the case of Regopoulas v. State, 42 s.......
-
McDonald v. State
... ... adjudicated at the trial. Griffin v. Eaves, 39 S.E ... 913, 114 Ga. 65. See, also, Moore v. Wheeler, 35 ... S.E. 116, 109 Ga. 62; Duren v. Stephens, 54 S.E ... In the ... case of Regopoulas v. State, 42 S.E. 1014, 116 Ga ... 596, no question was made as to the ... ...