Robinson v. Mayor

• Decision Date: 11 November 1904
• Citation: 121 Ga. 180,48 S.E. 924
• Parties: ROBINSON v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF AMERICUS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 924

121 Ga. 180

ROBINSON

v.MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF AMERICUS.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 11, 1904.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS—ILLEGAL SALE—CITY ORDINANCE—JURISDICTION.

1. The mayor and council of Americus, under the general welfare clause of the charter of that city, was authorized to prohibit by ordinance the having and keeping for unlawful purpose of wine, beer, or other intoxicating beverages, and had jurisdiction to try one charged with a violation of this provision of section 398 of its code of ordinances.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court Sumter County; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

Mamie Robinson was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Americus. Petition for certiorari was overruled, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Blalock & Cobb, for plaintiff in error.

J. H. Lumpkin, for defendant in error.

EVANS, J. On appeal from an adverse judgment of the mayor's court of the city of Americus, the plaintiff in error was tried before the mayor and council of that city on the charge of violating section 398 of the code of ordinances of the city of Americus. That section (398) of the city code declares that "each and every person or persons who shall carry on any business, or have or keep for gain any article or thing which the mayor and city council of Americus has declared to be the subject-matter of license, without taking out a license therefor as herein required, shall, on conviction, be punished as prescribed in section 19 of the charter for each day he, she or they may so offend." Before the introduction of any evidence, the plaintiff in error moved to dismiss the case because neither the mayor nor the mayor and council of the city of Americus had jurisdiction of the offense. This motion was overruled. On the trial a witness testified that the plaintiff in error sold at her house, to a named individual, two bottles of beer, at 50 cents each, and that witness had seen the plaintiff in error at other times prior to this sale sell beer in her house to other persons, whose names were not remembered by the witness. This evidence was objected to on the ground that the city had no jurisdiction of the offense, and therefore the testimony was illegal. It was also shown that the defendant had no license for carrying on a business of any character. The defendant was adjudged guilty, and she sued out a certiorari to the superior court; assigning as error the refusal to dismiss the case and the admission of the evidence objected to, and further complaining that the conviction was contrary to law and the evidence, and that error was committed in rejecting certain evidence. On the hearing before the superior court, the defendant abandoned all points raised by her petition for certiorari, save two, viz: (1) That the mayor and council had no jurisdiction of the offense charged; and (2) that the conviction was unwarranted, because only one sale of beer was shown, and therefore there was insufficient evidence upon which to find that the defendant was carrying on a business which the mayor and council had declared to be the subject-matter of license. The petition for certiorari was overruled, and the judgment of the mayor and council allowed to stand; and, to the Judgment of the superior court refusing to sustain the certiorari, exception was taken.

It appeared from the answer of the mayor and council, that the following ordinances were of force in the city of Americus, to wit: Section 399 of the code of ordinances: "No person or persons shall retail any wine, beer, cider or other spirituous, malt or fermented liquors in...