Gastenau v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 63 — Violation of City -Ordinance APPEAL FROM BELL CIRCUIT COURT. Berry Gastenau ivas Convicted for the Violation of a City Ordinance, and he Appeals. 1. The ordinance in controversy is repugnant to the Constitution, and is a restraint on the free locomotion of individuals, which as a police power of the city has no authority to control. 40 Am.
Read the full summary
Case 63 — Violation of City -Ordinance APPEAL FROM BELL CIRCUIT COURT. Berry Gastenau ivas Convicted for the Violation of a City Ordinance, and he Appeals. 1. The ordinance in controversy is repugnant to the Constitution, and is a restraint on the free locomotion of individuals, which as a police power of the city has no authority to control. 40 Am. Reports, page 126. 2 Municipal by-laws must be reasonable and whenever they appear not to be so, the court must as a matter of law declare them void. Cooley Con. Limitations, star page 200, and authorities there cited This is a police regulation…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court by
JUDGE GU'PPY
Reversing.
The sole question presented for decision is whether or not the following ordinances are valid or constitutional. The appellant, having been convicted for a violation thereof, prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court, and, the circuit court having adjudged-the ordinances valid, and rendered a judgment for cost against the appellant, he prosecutes an appeal from so much of the judgment as holds said ordinance to be valid. The ordinances read as follows: “Be it ordained by the board of council of the city of Middlesboro, Bell county, Ky.: (1) That it…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People v. CaseMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
- City of Carthage v. BlockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Commonwealth ex rel. City of Madisonville v. PriceCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- State v. NelsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1905