Case v. Mayor of Mobile

[PKODI3I5DINQ JOB, VIOLATION, OS’ MUNIOIEAL ORDINANCE.] 1. Judicial notice taken of municipal charter, but not of hy-iuw. — the courts áre bóutiVMó'talie'judióial uotieé of-th-é ^cbártúf of á ’munic-ipat'cofporáÉion/ánd oftits;power tp malic by-laws ;JbW»ot of tile by-laws made-by,; it. . 'm 2. Sufficiency of complaint for, violating Municipal' afffinanceIu .proceeding: for. the violation of,a municipal ordinance, the complaint must set forth the by-láw, itá broach,'and'the plaintiff’s right to Sue'for-the penalty. ' '

Appeal from tbe City Court of Mobile. TfieA-béfofé the ’Iion-V AtfexCM'cK'iNSirRT.' Tjpii'- appellant .was. fined‘;i$50i by ‘the» maydr of the" city of Mobile, for an allegediviolation-ofr amofdinance, ;pim bibiting tbe selling of liquor without a license; and removed tbe proceedings, by appeal, into the city court, where tbe following complaint was filed against him: “Mayor, Aldermen, an dr Common Council of Mobile/ Plaintiff claims of defend-ys. ( ant $50, for violation of the John Case. ) ordinance above set forth. “Plaintiff claims the sum of $50 as a fine, for that the defendant, on the 4th May, 1856, did sell to certain slaves, whose names and owners are unknown,, one a yellow boy, about thirty-four years of age, and one a black boy, about twenty-two years of age, in the city of Mobile, spirituous liquors, without the written permission of the owner, master, or agent, contrary to the ordinance of said corporation then in force, a copy of which is hereto attached.” The defendant demurred to this complaint, for uncertainty and insufficiency, 1st, in not giving the names of the slaves or their owners; 2d, in not setting out the ordinance alleged to have been violated; and, 3d, in not alleging a breach of any ordinance. The overruling of this demurrer is now assigned as error.