City of Hannibal v. Dudley

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of Hannibal v. Dudley

138 S.W. 552, 158 Mo. App. 261, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 471

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 S.W. 552 (City of Hannibal v. Dudley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Hannibal v. Dudley, 138 S.W. 552, 158 Mo. App. 261, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

REYNOLDS, P. J.

Defendant in this case was proceeded against in tbe recorder’s court of the city of Hannibal for a violation of a city ordinance. From a conviction there and imposition of a fine of three dollars, he appealed to the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. After a somewhat lengthy trial before the court and a jury, at which the evidence was conflicting, defendant was again convicted and the same fine ($3.00) imposed. No instructions were asked or given. Defendant has appealed to this court.

We have held in city of Caruthersville v. Palsgrove, 155 Mo. App. 564, 134 S. W. 1032, following many cases there cited, that a prosecution for a violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal but a civil action and that the rules of court applicable to civil actions apply.

[262]*262The contention of counsel for defendant in this case is, not that there was no evidence in the case to support the conviction, but that the weight of evidence is against the-verdict. We might dispose of the case by pronouncing this an untenable theory. Out of abundant caution, however, and to give defendant the benefit of any doubt on the matter, we have read all the testimony, as set out in the printed abstract filed with us by appellant, and see no reason to disturb the finding of the jury and the judgment of the lower court. The verdict is sustained by an abundance of evidence. Its weight and the credibility of the witnesses who gave it were for the determination of the jury and the trial judge. The judgment of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Nortoni and Caulfield, JJ., concur.

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

REYNOLDS, P. J.

Defendant in this case was proceeded against in tbe recorder’s court of the city of Hannibal for a violation of a city ordinance. From a conviction there and imposition of a fine of three dollars, he appealed to the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. After a somewhat lengthy trial before the court and a jury, at which the evidence was conflicting, defendant was again convicted and the same fine ($3.00) imposed. No instructions were asked or given. Defendant has appealed to this court.

We have held in city of Caruthersville v. Palsgrove, 155 Mo. App. 564, 134 S. W. 1032, following many cases there cited, that a prosecution for a violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal but a civil action and that the rules of court applicable to civil actions apply.

[262]*262The contention of counsel for defendant in this case is, not that there was no evidence in the case to support the conviction, but that the weight of evidence is against the-verdict. We might dispose of the case by pronouncing this an untenable theory. Out of abundant caution, however, and to give defendant the benefit of any doubt on the matter, we have read all the testimony, as set out in the printed abstract filed with us by appellant, and see no reason to disturb the finding of the jury and the judgment of the lower court. The verdict is sustained by an abundance of evidence. Its weight and the credibility of the witnesses who gave it were for the determination of the jury and the trial judge. The judgment of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Nortoni and Caulfield, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 552, 158 Mo. App. 261, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-hannibal-v-dudley-moctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack