Ex parte Trimble

• Decision Date: 12 June 1924
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 178.
• Citation: 211 Ala. 654,101 So. 524
• Parties: EX PARTE PRIESTLY TRIMBLE. v. TOWN OF HALEYVILLE. PRIESTLY TRIMBLE
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

101 So. 524

211 Ala. 654

EX PARTE PRIESTLY TRIMBLE.

PRIESTLY TRIMBLE v. TOWN OF HALEYVILLE.

6 Div. 178.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 12, 1924

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1924.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Priestly Trimble was convicted of an offense, and appealed to the Court of Appeals, and, his conviction being there affirmed he brings this petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision rendered by that court in the case of Trimble v. Town of Haleyville, 101 So. 523. Writ denied.

The petition shows that petitioner was tried and convicted in the mayor's court of the town of Haleyville, under an ordinance set out in the report of the appeal in the case of Trimble v. State, 101 So. 523; that he appealed to the circuit court, where he was tried and convicted by the judge without a jury; the judgment of the circuit court being in part as follows: "It is ordered and adjudged by the court that the defendant is guilty as charged in the complaint. And thereupon the court imposed a fine of $100 together with the costs of this case, for which let execution issue It is the further order and judgment of the court that the defendant *** be and is hereby sentenced to a term of 60 days in the county jail as an additional punishment for said offense."

It is insisted by the petitioner that the provision of the ordinance for imprisonment or hard labor at the discretion of the court is void, and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the ordinance was valid.

Curtis Pennington & Pou, of Jasper, for petitioner.

Chester Tubb, of Haleyville, opposed.

THOMAS, J.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ , concur.

On Rehearing.

THOMAS J.

The trial was de novo in the circuit court. Wright v City of Bessemer, 209 Ala. 374, 96 So. 316. The certiorari is ruled by Thomas v. City of Mobile, 203 Ala. 96, 82 So. 110. The latter authority from this court differentiates, or is at variance with, the construction given the statute and general ordinances in question (Code 1907, § 1217) in Goldberger v City of Mobile, 17 Ala. App. 145, 82 So. 635; Jackson v. City of Mobile, 16 Ala. App. 664, 81 So. 184; Hannibal v. City of Mobile, 16 Ala. App. 625, 80 So. 629; Clark v. City of Uniontown, 4 Ala. App. 264, 58 So. 725. The foregoing authorities by the Court of Appeals appear not to have been approved by this court.

The cases of Feagin v. City of Andalusia, 12 Ala....