City Council v. King
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
This was a suit on the part oí the City Council oi Charleston, against the defendant, for selling spirituous liquors within the City, without a license, contrary to the ordinance; penalty $200. The defendant plead in abatement, that his name was not A. W. King, but Alexander King. To this plaintiffs replied that he was as well known by one name as the other, which was proved.
Read the full summary
This was a suit on the part oí the City Council oi Charleston, against the defendant, for selling spirituous liquors within the City, without a license, contrary to the ordinance; penalty $200. The defendant plead in abatement, that his name was not A. W. King, but Alexander King. To this plaintiffs replied that he was as well known by one name as the other, which was proved. The defendant adduced no evidence, and his counsel contended that the initials of a name were no Christian name, and that defendant must be sued by his Christian name. The Recokber overruled the plea, as defendant had…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia per
Colcock, J.
In this case the Court concur with the Recorder and the motion must be refused. The question of jurisdiction has long since been settled in the case of the City Council vs. Samuel Miller, decided at the January sitting of 1822. As to the objection to the form of action, that is completely put to rest by the act of 1823, which declares that the penalty shall be recovered by the City Council. The act gives to the city Council power to pass any ordinance or ordinances imposing penalties on retailers of spirituous liquors, without license, and then adds, and “ to recover the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Falls & Smith v. BelknapNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Corwein v. HamesNew York Supreme Court · 1814