Green v. City of Demopolis

101 So. 529, 20 Ala. App. 115, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 183
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 13, 1924
Docket2 Div. 292.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 101 So. 529 (Green v. City of Demopolis) 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
Green v. City of Demopolis, 101 So. 529, 20 Ala. App. 115, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 183 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinions

It is the law that municipal ordinances must be clear, certain, and duly promulgated. Kreulhaus v. City of Birmingham, 164 Ala. 623,51 So. 297, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 492. The ordinance in the instant case meets that requirement, and the demurrer to the complaint filed by the city was properly overruled.

The book of ordinances of the city of Demopolis, being identified by the city clerk, who also testified to the custody and publication, and also to his certificate, was properly admitted in evidence. Vol. 10 Mich. Dig. p. 61 (3). The provisions of section 1258 of the Code of 1907, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 735, relating to the recording of ordinances, is directory. Smith v. Town of Eclectic, 18 Ala. App. 329,92 So. 212. The validity of the ordinance was sufficiently proven.

Whether the whisky was owned by defendant or not, if he had it in his possession at the time complained of, he would be guilty. Moreover, charges 5 and 6 were not predicated on the evidence. For both of these reasons, charges 5, 6, and 7 were properly refused.

The evidence was in conflict, and hence the affirmative charge was properly refused.

The ownership of the house was collateral, and therefore it was competent to prove its ownership by one who knew the fact.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.
Charges 5 and 6 requested in writing were not predicated upon a consideration of the evidence. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160,87 So. 179; Davis v. State, 188 Ala. 59, 66 So. 67; Cobb v. State, 19 Ala. App. 345, 97 So. 779; Stewart v. State, 19 Ala. App. 389,97 So. 684; Jones v. State, 209 Ala. 655, 96 So. 867; White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709; Riley v. State,209 Ala. 505, 96 So. 599.

The application is overruled.

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

Related

Womack v. State
41 So. 2d 429 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1949)
Barnes v. State
38 So. 2d 21 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)
MacLaughlin v. Hull
87 F.2d 641 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
Arrington v. State
133 So. 592 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1931)
Humber v. State
108 So. 646 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Ex Parte Green
101 So. 531 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 So. 529, 20 Ala. App. 115, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-city-of-demopolis-alactapp-1924.