Harrison v. State
| Decision Date | 31 October 1845 |
| Citation | 9 Mo. 530 |
| Parties | JAMES HARRISON v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT.
LEWIS V. BOGY, for Appellant. The appellant contends that the city of St. Louis has exclusive jurisdiction by its charter, to license and regulate all Ferries within its corporate limits, and refers to the following acts of the Legislature: § 2, art. 3 of act chartering the city, approved the 8th February, 1839; page 160 of Session acts (giving the city exclusive power within the city to license and regulate the keeping of ferries); and also 2nd section 3rd article of the charter, approved 15th February, 1841, p. 133 of Session acts, giving the same power as the charter of 1839; and also the 40th section of the 3rd article of the charter, approved the 8th February, 1843, Session acts, p. 119, giving power to regulate and license all ferries within the limits of the city. (By this last charter the word exclusive is left out). The act regulating Ferries, approved the 26th February, 1835, p. 175. Rev Code, is not in force in the city of St. Louis. According to the 28th section of the act, concerning Revised Statutes, p. 383. Rev. Code, providing that where provisions of different statutes are repugnant to each other, that which shall have been last passed shall prevail. The act of 1835, regulating Ferries, is repealed by the subsequent acts of the Legislature, giving exclusive power to the city of St. Louis, to license and regulate all ferries within its limits.
If the above positions are correct, it follows that the demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained.
The plaintiff in error was indicted by the grand jury of St. Louis county, for keeping a ferry without a license from the County Court, as required by the act regulating Ferries, approved 26th February, 1835. The plaintiff in error had taken out a license from the city authorities of St. Louis, and the only question was, whether on this subject, the ferry being on the Mississippi at the city of St. Louis, the city had exclusive privileges. Unless there be something in the language of the city charter, to give it such exclusive right of taxation, it would hardly be presumed. The city authorities have by their charter, the power to levy and collect taxes upon all property made taxable by law, for State purposes; they have the power to license, tax and regulate auctioneers, grocers, merchants, &c., and the right to restrain and suppress billiard-houses,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Rapids, E.L. & P. Co. v. Grand Rapids, E.E.L. & F.G. Co.
...and to give must have exclusive control of the streets. East Hartford v. Bridge Co., 10 How. 511; Minturn v. Larue, 23 How. 435; Harrison v. State, 9 Mo. 530; McEwen Taylor, 4 G.Green, 532; Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 796. The city had no express exclusive control of the streets. It was not i......
-
State v. Business Men's Athletic Club
...supersede the general provision of section 4681, Revised Statutes of 1909, prohibiting such exhibitions. Section 9582, R. S. 1909; Harrison v. State, 9 Mo. 530; City of St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 594, 84 S. W. 914; St. Louis v. World Publishing Co., 227 Mo. 146, 151, 126 S. W. 1019; S......
-
State v. Business Men's Club
...supersede the general provision of section 4681, Revised Statutes of 1909, prohibiting such exhibitions. [Sec. 9582, R. S. 1909; Harrison v. State, 9 Mo. 530; of St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 594, 84 S.W. 914; St. Louis v. World Publishing Co., 227 Mo. 146, 151, 126 S.W. 1019; State ex r......
-
State v. Kessells
...251; Kerney v. Barber Co., 86 Mo.App. 579; State v. Gordon, 60 Mo. 383; State v. DeBar, 58 Mo. 396; State v. Clark, 54 Mo. 17; Harrison v. State, 9 Mo. 530; State v. Thompson, 160 Mo. 341. John D. McNeely for respondent. (1) Respondent insists that the grant of power in section 5508 is limi......