Garland v. City of Denver

• Decision Date: 16 October 1888
• Citation: 19 P. 460,11 Colo. 534
• Parties: GARLAND et al. v. CITY OF DENVER.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

19 P. 460

11 Colo. 534

GARLAND et al. v. CITY OF DENVER.

Supreme Court of Colorado

October 16, 1888

Commissioners' decision. Error to criminal court, Arapahoe county.

The plaintiffs in error, J. B. Garland and C. C. Bischof, were arrested in April, 1884, and afterwards tried before the police court of the city of Denver, on the charge of having engaged in the business of ticket brokers in said city without license, contrary to its ordinance. They were convicted, and each adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and costs from which judgment they appealed to the criminal court of the county of Arapahoe, where they were tried, before a jury and convicted, and each adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and costs. The cause is brought to this court by writ of error.

Browne & Putnam, for plaintiffs in error.

DE FRANCE, C.

The plaintiffs in error claim that this is not a criminal case and that, therefore, the criminal court of Arapahoe county had no jurisdiction of the same. This is a prosecution for the violation of a city ordinance, and is brought in the name of the city, as provided for by section 26, art. 2, of the charter of said city, in force when this suit was commenced. Sess. Laws 1883, p. 68. It is not a criminal case in the sense in which that term is used in section 24, art. 6, of the constitution of this state. This section reads as follows: 'The general assembly shall have power to create and establish a criminal court in each county having a population exceeding 15,000, which court may have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts in all criminal cases not capital; the terms of such courts to be as provided by law.' The criminal courts of this state depend for their existence upon this provision of the constitution, and the law, relating to such courts, enacted in pursuance thereof. They can only exercise criminal jurisdiction of the kind contemplated by this constitutional provision. A criminal case, within the meaning of such provision, is one brought for an offense committed against the laws of this state. The ordinances of municipal corporations within the state are not laws of the state. Jurisdiction to hear and determine causes brought for a violation of such ordinances cannot be conferred upon the criminal courts. In support of this position, we cite the following authorities: Williams v. Augusta, 4 Ga. 509; Davenport v. Bird, 34 Iowa 524; Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403, 2 N.W. 51. The...