Ex Parte Battis
Decision Date | 22 December 1898 |
Parties | Ex parte BATTIS. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Tarrant county; Irby Dunklin, Judge.
Charles Battis sued out a writ of habeas corpus, and was remanded, and he appeals. Discharged.
Wilson Gregg, for relator. W. D. Williams, for respondent.
Relator was arrested for an alleged violation of a city ordinance, and sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the district judge, who, after hearing the evidence, remanded the prisoner, and he prosecutes this appeal.
The complaint is as follows: etc.
The portions of the charter of the city of Ft. Worth introduced in evidence are as follows: Section 53 provides that the city council, among other things, shall have power "to prevent the encumbering of the streets, alleys, sidewalks and public grounds with carriages, wagons, carts, hacks, buggies, or any vehicle whatsoever." Sp. Laws 1889, p. 76. Section 53a provides that the city council shall have power "to license, tax and regulate hackmen, draymen, omnibus drivers, baggage wagon drivers and drivers of vehicles of every kind, * * * and to regulate stands for vehicles," etc. Sp. Laws 1891, p. 16. The ordinance passed by the city of Ft. Worth under said provisions of the charter is as follows: Chapter 7, art. 55: "Any person or persons owning or using any street carriage, hack or other vehicle for the purpose of conveying passengers, goods, wares or merchandise from one part of the city of Ft. Worth to another, for hire, who shall stop, stand or detain any such carriage, hack or vehicle on Main or Houston streets, or upon any cross streets running east and west between said Main and Houston streets, commencing with Weatherford street on the north, and ending with Seventh street on the south, or in front of any public hotel in said city, except when actually engaged in receiving or delivering passengers, goods, wares or merchandise, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than five nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Belding v. Rector
...188; 157 N.Y. 116; 124 Mich. 664; 133 Cal. 373. The ordinance is oppressive and invalid. 85 F. 19; 31 F. 680; 34 Ark. 353; 178 Ill. 250; 48 S.W. 513; 49 La.Ann. 366; 111 Ga. 162; 83 Minn. 257; Ark. 462; 46 N.Y. 596; 7 Lea, 134. The legislature can not confer a power which it does not posses......
-
Ex Parte Sullivan
...to declare an ordinance unreasonable and void, unless its unreasonableness shall clearly appear. Ex parte Battis, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 112 [48 S. W. 513, 43 L. R. A. 863, 76 Am. St. Rep. 708]; Thomp. Corp. § 1021; St. Louis v. Weber, 44 Mo. And as further stated by him in Ex parte Battis, 40 Tex.......
-
Ex Parte Largent
...will be granted, as against a city ordinance, where the ordinance in question is so unreasonable as to be void. Ex parte Battis , 48 S.W. 513 [43 L.R.A. 863, 76 Am.St.Rep. 708], and authorities there It was shown in the Patterson case, supra, that the relator was only tried in the corporati......
-
Harper v. City of Wichita Falls
...(Tex.Civ.App.) 241 S.W. 1034, 1035; Davis v. City of Houston (Tex.Civ.App.) 264 S.W. 625, 629; also Ex parte Battis, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 112, 48 S.W. 513, 43 L.R.A. 863, 76 Am.St.Rep. 708; Decker v. City of Wichita, 109 Kan. 796, 202 P. 89; Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 P. 516, L.R.A.1918B......