Lindsey v. City of Anniston

• Decision Date: 10 August 1894
• Citation: 16 So. 545,104 Ala. 257
• Parties: LINDSEY v. MAYOR, ETC., OF ANNISTON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 545

104 Ala. 257

LINDSEY v. MAYOR, ETC., OF ANNISTON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

August 10, 1894

Appeal from city court of Anniston; B. F. Cassady, Judge.

Joe Lindsey was found guilty of violating an ordinance of the city of Anniston regulating the solicitation of patronage by agents of transfer companies at the Union Depot, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant was arrested and tried, before the recorder of the city of Anniston, for the violation of an ordinance of the city. On his appeal to the city court of Anniston, there was a complaint filed in behalf of the mayor and city council of Anniston, claiming of the defendant a penalty for the violation of an ordinance passed by the mayor and city council of Anniston "to prevent the annoyance to persons arriving or departing on passenger trains at the Union Depot in the city of Anniston," in that the said Lindsey "being a hackman, or the agent of a transfer company, at the arrival of a passenger train at the Union Depot, in the city of Anniston, did go within the said depot for the purpose of soliciting patronage for his hack or transfer company," and that said Lindsey failed to stand without the entrance, leaving the passageway clear at said entrance. The cause was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, of which the following is a copy: "It is agreed between the parties that the facts of this case are as follows: That on the 18th day of March, 1891, Joe Lindsey employé and transfer man, and agent of the Anniston Transfer Company, in the discharge of his duties, at the time of the arrival of a passenger train, was at and within the Union Depot at Anniston, Alabama, soliciting in an orderly and respectful manner, without hindrance to the traveling public passengers and baggage for said company, under authority from said company as its agent, said company claiming the right for its agents to so solicit passengers and baggage under and by virtue of a contract and bond submitted as part of the evidence in this case, which bond and contract is objected to as evidence on the ground that it is irrelevant and no defense to a violation of the ordinance. That the said Union Depot is, and at the time was, the property of the Alabama Mineral Railroad Company, under the sole control and management of said railroad company and the East Tennessee Virginia & Georgia Railroad Company as a passenger depot." The plaintiff also introduced in evidence a copy of the ordinance referred to, entitled "An ordinance to prevent the annoyance of persons arriving or departing on passenger trains at the Union Depot in the city of Anniston." The first section of this ordinance is as follows: "Be it ordained by the mayor and city council of Anniston that at the arrival and departure of passenger trains from the Union Depot, no hackman, agent of any transfer company, livery stable, hotel porter, or any other person shall go within the depot for the purpose of soliciting patronage for his hack, transfer company, livery stable, hotel, or baggage or transfer wagon; but all such persons shall stand without the entrance leaving a clear passage way at such entrance." The cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, assessing the fine at the same amount which was imposed by the recorder.

Knox, Bowie & Pelham, for appellant.

Benj. Micon, for appellee.

BRICKELL C.J.

The amended charter of the city of Anniston confers on the mayor and council of the city large powers intended to promote good government within the corporate limits, and the public peace order, and convenience. Among other powers, is the power "to license, tax and regulate hacks, carriages, drays, and all other vehicles, and to fix the rate to be charged for the carriage of persons and property within the corporate limits of the city, or to the public grounds or property without the city." Pamph. Acts, 1890-91, p. 104. The ordinance the appellant was convicted of having violated was adopted by the mayor and common council in the exercise of the power to regulate hacks. The power of regulation is the more general of the powers the charter confers, and, as applied to business, occupations, or employments, is the power to prescribe rules for the conduct of the business, or the manner in which the occupation or...