City of Deadwood v. Allen

68 N.W. 333, 9 S.D. 221, 1896 S.D. LEXIS 141
South Dakota Supreme Court·Decided August 27, 1896·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Fuller, J.

This case, now before us on an application for a rehearing, was decided at the present term, and is reported in 67 N„ W, at page 835, where the complaint, charging [222] a violation of amity ordinance, is considered and held to be entirely sufficient. As the trial before the police justice was found to be in all respects regular, and the judgment fully authorized by the ordinance and statute under which the defendant was prosecuted, it was not then, nor is it now, deemed important to determine whether the action is civil or criminal in character, although the petition for a rehearing relates to that point alone. Counsel’s contention that, unless the action is criminal, the enforcement, by imprisonment, of the fine imposed, is in contravention of Sec. 15 of the sixth article of the bill of rights, is not sustainable, as that provision relates only and expressly to “debts arising out of or founded upon a contract.” Confident that no essential question has been overlooked, and that a different conclusion would not be reached were a rehearing granted, the petition therefor is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Deadwood v. Allen, 68 N.W. 333, 9 S.D. 221, 1896 S.D. LEXIS 141 (S.D. 1896).

68 N.W. 333 (City of Deadwood v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Detroit v. Pillon
171 N.W.2d 484 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1969)
State v. Thompson
125 N.W. 567 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1910)