Goldberger v. City of Mobile

Alabama Court of Appeals

Goldberger v. City of Mobile

82 So. 635, 17 Ala. App. 145, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 157

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 22, 1919

Docket1 Div. 313.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 So. 635 (Goldberger v. City of Mobile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldberger v. City of Mobile, 82 So. 635, 17 Ala. App. 145, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 157 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1] The prosecution in this case was begun before the recorder of the city of Mobile, and charged a violation of an ordinap.ce of the city prohibiting the sale of liquors. In the recorder’s court the defendant was fined $100, and from that judgment he appealed to the circuit court. The defendant was tried in the circuit court of Mobile, before a jury, on a complaint filed by the city, was convicted, and the jury 'assessed a fine against him of $50. The court added an additional punishment of hard labor for a term of 90 days. This was error. Clark v. City of Uniontown, 4 Ala. App. 264, 58 South. 725; Hannibal v. City of Mobile, 80 South. 629; 1 Jackson v. City of Mobile, 16 Ala. App. 664, 81 South. 184.

[2] We find no error in the record affecting any proceedings of the court up to and including the rendition of the verdict of the jury and the judgment of guilt upon such verdict. For. the error above mentioned in the sentence of the defendant, the part of the judgment relating to the sentence is reversed, and the cause is remanded, for further proceedings in conformity to law.

Judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Reversed in part and remanded.

1

16 Ala. App. 625.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1] The prosecution in this case was begun before the recorder of the city of Mobile, and charged a violation of an ordinap.ce of the city prohibiting the sale of liquors. In the recorder’s court the defendant was fined $100, and from that judgment he appealed to the circuit court. The defendant was tried in the circuit court of Mobile, before a jury, on a complaint filed by the city, was convicted, and the jury 'assessed a fine against him of $50. The court added an additional punishment of hard labor for a term of 90 days. This was error. Clark v. City of Uniontown, 4 Ala. App. 264, 58 South. 725; Hannibal v. City of Mobile, 80 South. 629; 1 Jackson v. City of Mobile, 16 Ala. App. 664, 81 South. 184.

[2] We find no error in the record affecting any proceedings of the court up to and including the rendition of the verdict of the jury and the judgment of guilt upon such verdict. For. the error above mentioned in the sentence of the defendant, the part of the judgment relating to the sentence is reversed, and the cause is remanded, for further proceedings in conformity to law.

Judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Reversed in part and remanded.

1

16 Ala. App. 625.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 635, 17 Ala. App. 145, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberger-v-city-of-mobile-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack