City of Savannah v. Dickey

33 Mo. App. 522, 1889 Mo. App. LEXIS 21
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 4, 1889·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Ellison, J.

Defendant was convicted of committing a nuisance by keeping on premises occupied by him the carcass of a dead mule, contrary to an ordinance of the city of Savannah.

I. Defendant complains that there was no proof or allegation of the incorporation of the city. Such allegation and proof is not necessary. We will take judicial notice that the city of Savannah is a city of the fourth class. R. S., sec. 4931.

II. The next complaint is that the defendant is charged to have “unlawfully kept and maintained the nuisance, when the ordinance on that subject is, whoever shall “wilfully” keep or maintain, etc. This objection will not be considered well taken in a proceeding under a municipal ordinance where the same precision of pleading is not required as under an indictment.

Other objections were made to the proceeding and we have given them due consideration,' but think they

are not well taken. The judgment is affirmed.

All concur. .

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

City of Savannah v. Dickey, 33 Mo. App. 522, 1889 Mo. App. LEXIS 21 (Mo. Ct. App. 1889).

33 Mo. App. 522 (City of Savannah v. Dickey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shelby County R-IV School District v. Herman
392 S.W.2d 609 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1965)
Jackson v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad
58 S.W. 32 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Hubbel v. City of Maryville
85 Mo. App. 165 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
Bennett v. City of Marion
76 N.W. 844 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
City of Brookfield v. Tooey
43 S.W. 387 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
State ex rel. Jones v. White
70 Mo. App. 1 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)