City of Owensboro v. Simms
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 12 —WARRANT APPEAL FROM DAVEISS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The framers of the Constitution and of the statutes certainly did not intend to take from the cities that part of their police power which is embraced in common law offenses.
Read the full summary
Case 12 —WARRANT APPEAL FROM DAVEISS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The framers of the Constitution and of the statutes certainly did not intend to take from the cities that part of their police power which is embraced in common law offenses. And the fact that the words “imposed by statute” are used in both the Constitution and statutes seems conclusive that common-law offenses, for which a penalty is not fixed by statute, were not intended to he included therein. 2. The keeping of a bawdy house in a city may be an offense against the city under an ordinance, and also an offense against the State. (Kemper…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LANDES
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question presented in this case is.whether or not the police court of the city of Owensboro, a city of the third class, has jurisdiction to punish one found guilty under an ordinance of the board of council of the offense of keeping a bawdy house, or house of ill-fame, in said city.
It is a common-law offense, and there, is no statute of this State that imposes a penalty for it. The offense is punishable, however, at comm-on law upon indictment by fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of a jury. But city ordinance No. 45, which was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- City of Louisville v. WehmhoffCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Lucas v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Moren v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Respass v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915