Jackson v. City of Mobile

81 So. 184, 16 Ala. App. 664, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 16
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 21, 1919·No. 1 Div. 300.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

This is a prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance, and originated in the recorder’s court of the city of Mobile. From the judgment of the recorder, an appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, where the defendant was accorded a trial by jury. The verdict of the jury assessed the defendant's fine at $75, and, upon failure to pay the fine and costs, he was sentenced to hard labor for the city to pay the fine and costs. The court, as additional pun-., Ishment, sentenced him to six months’ hard labor, and in this committed error. Hannibal v. City of Mobile, ante, p. 625, 80 So. 629; Clark v. City of Uniontown, 4 Ala. App. 264, 58 South. 725.

There being no error in the judgment of conviction, that judgment will be affirmed; but the sentence is set aside and annulled and the cause remanded to the trial court for proper sentence In accordance with the law.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.

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

Jackson v. City of Mobile, 81 So. 184, 16 Ala. App. 664, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 16 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

81 So. 184 (Jackson v. City of Mobile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. City of Jasper
43 So. 2d 843 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1950)
Ex Parte Trimble
101 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Trimble v. Town of Haleyville
101 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Goldberger v. City of Mobile
82 So. 635 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)