Goldberger v. City of Mobile
Goldberger v. City of Mobile.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
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
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.