Town of Springs v. Green
| Decision Date | 26 March 1900 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOWN OF OCEAN SPRINGS v. JOHN M. GREEN |
December 1899
FROM the circuit court of Jackson county, HON. THADDEUS A. WOOD Judge.
The appellee, Green, having been convicted in the municipal court of Ocean Springs, a town operating under the code chapter entitled "Municipalities, " of a violation of an ordinance of the town making it a municipal offense to carry concealed, or to exhibit in a rude, angry or threatening manner, any deadly weapon, appealed to the circuit court. Upon the trial in that court the ordinance was held void, a judgment acquitting the defendant was entered, and the town of Ocean Springs appealed to the supreme court. The nature of the ordinance and its title are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The section of the code construed by the supreme court is as follows.
White & Harper and J. I. Ford for appellant.
In the case of Johnson v. State, 59 Miss. 543, it was held that a prosecution under a town ordinance for gambling was no bar to a prosecution for the same act under the statute against gambling; in Ex parte Bourgeoise, 60 Miss. 663, Judge Chalmers, in speaking of the Johnson case, said: "We hold that it was competent for the legislature to delegate to the municipality the right to make acts which are punishable by the state laws, punishable also by the municipal authorities when committed within their limits."
Under chapter 93 of the code of 1892 a city or town can punish offenses against the peace and order of the municipality although the same offense is punishable under the state laws. But the whole question is settled by chapter 75, laws 1898, p. 91. By this late statute municipalities are given power to punish all acts which are punishable under the state laws.
There is nothing in the objection that the ordinance contained two subjects. Carrying concealed weapons and exhibiting deadly weapons may well be classed as one subject and included in one ordinance, just as the offense of exhibiting deadly weapons and using deadly weapons in a fight or quarrel are prohibited by § 1031 of the code, and as dueling, carrying a challenge, accepting a challenge, and acting as second in a duel are all prohibited by § 1036.
E. A. Clark and J. H. Neville for appellee.
It appears by the record that the town of Ocean Springs is a municipality operating under chapter 93 of the code.
The provisions contained in 3008, code 1892, are mandatory. 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 245, and cases cited.
That the ordinance is subject to the objection that its title does not clearly express its subject is evident. The subjects contained in the ordinance are "concealed weapons" and "exhibiting deadly weapons in a rude, angry and threating manner." The title says nothing whatever of "concealed weapons."
Under provisions like § 3008, the title is a part of the act and must show clearly the subject. Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, Sec. 59.
The general object of the ordinance is perhaps set out in the title, but there is a vast difference between "object" and "subject." That the ordinance contains more than one subject is so apparent on the face of the ordinance that argument is hardly necessary. The offenses are separate crimes by our code. Sec. 1026, , code 1892, relates to carrying concealed weapons. That of exhibiting deadly weapons is treated by § 1031, code 1892.
The ordinance is fatally defective for the reasons stated; especially when we consider that all acts passed by municipalities by virtue of delegated powers must strictly conform to the terms of the power granted. Leonard v. City of Canton, 35 Miss. 189; Endlich on the Interpretation of Statutes, sec. 353.
The third objection to the ordinance, that the town of Ocean Springs had no power to pass the ordinance, is general in its character, and affects not only the Ordinance in question but all existing ordinances of municipalities, operating under the code which attempt to punish crimes or offenses included in the criminal code of the state.
The legislature has not authority to delegate to municipalities such power over state crimes or offenses. If it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Collins v. Jones
... ... Defined, 368; Edwards v. Lesuer, 31 L. R. A. 815; ... Green v. Waller, 32 Miss. 677 ... There ... would be but little trouble about this amendment ... came before this court for consideration in the case of ... Town of Ocean Springs v. John M ... Green, reported in 77 Miss. 472, 27 So. 743 ... Ordinance ... ...
-
Dodd v. City of Jackson
...two different ordinances, and thus initiate at the same time two different proceedings in the chancery court. In Town of Ocean Springs v. Green, 77 Miss. 472, 27 So. 743, 744, the title to the ordinance under review was 'An ordinance entitled 'An ordinance to prevent the carrying or exhibit......
-
Richards v. Town of Magolia
...prevent the slipping of "snakes" into laws and ordinances. The "blanket" ordinance in question here contains but one subject. Ocean Springs v. Green, 77 Miss. 472. The case of Wingfield v. Jackson, 42 So. 183, which this court decided the exact question. Section 3406 requires that the "subj......
-
Sample v. Town of Verona
... ... Winfield v ... Jackson, 89 Miss. 272, 42 So. 183; Chrisman v ... Jackson, 84 Miss. 787, 37 So. 1015; Ocean Springs v ... Green, 77 Miss. 472, 27 So. 743; Kemp v ... Hazlehurst, 80 Miss. 443, 31 So. 908; Morris v ... Greenwood, 73 Miss. 430, 19 So. 105. Even ... ...