Bethune v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Georgia
Habeas Corpus, iu Muscogee Superior Court. Decision by Judge "Worrill, at May Term, 1859. This was an application by plaintiff in error, to be discharged from an alleged illegal imprisonment to which he was subjected, under, and by virtue of, a warrant issued by the city council of Columbus, for a violation of one of the market ordinances of said city.
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus, iu Muscogee Superior Court. Decision by Judge "Worrill, at May Term, 1859. This was an application by plaintiff in error, to be discharged from an alleged illegal imprisonment to which he was subjected, under, and by virtue of, a warrant issued by the city council of Columbus, for a violation of one of the market ordinances of said city. At the hearing before Judge Worrill, in addition to the return of the marshal, it appeared that the following were the market ordinances, for the violation of which, Bethune was fined and arrested, viz: “ That no person shall contract for or…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.,
delivering the opinion.
The only question which we propose to consider and decide is: did the mayor and council of the city of Columbus have the power to pass an ordinance making it penal, to sell such articles as are usually vended at a public city market, at any other place (within certain hours) than at the market ?
By the 3rd section of the act of 1858, it is declared that “ the mayor and council of the city of Columbus shall “ have the power to establish and keep up one or more “public markets in said city for the sale of poultry, eggs, “ butter, milk, fresh meats…
2Cited by9 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. WeberSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- City of St. Louis v. RussellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- City of Jacksonville v. LedwithSupreme Court of Florida · 1890
- City of St. Paul v. TraegerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- State ex rel. Russell v. BeattieMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.