Ex parte Caldwell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Habeas Corpus. (1) Any ordinance that violates the express provisions of the city’s charter is void. By the letter of section 122 (Laws of 1893, p. 100) the city has power to affix the “same penalty and no other for the punishment of such offense,” etc. The punishment prescribed by the ordinance is different; therefore, void.' Laws of 1893, sec. 122, p. 100; R. S. 1889, sec. 1902; Warrensburg v. McHugh, 122 Mo.'649; Johnson v. Daw, 53 Mo.
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus. (1) Any ordinance that violates the express provisions of the city’s charter is void. By the letter of section 122 (Laws of 1893, p. 100) the city has power to affix the “same penalty and no other for the punishment of such offense,” etc. The punishment prescribed by the ordinance is different; therefore, void.' Laws of 1893, sec. 122, p. 100; R. S. 1889, sec. 1902; Warrensburg v. McHugh, 122 Mo.'649; Johnson v. Daw, 53 Mo. App. 373; Mayor of New York v. Ordrenan, 12 Johns, 122; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp. [4 Ed.], secs. 336, 337, 339, 340, 341, 343, and344. (2) It is true generally…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
The petitioner was on the fifteenth day of January, 1896, convicted in the police court of the city of Mexico, Missouri, of violating an ordinance-of said city prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $15, in default of the payment of which he was committed to-the custody of John Lane, the city marshal, who delivered him into the custody of David Owens, the street commissioner of said city, in pursuance of its ordinance, where he has remained ever since.
On the third day of February, 1897, the petitioner sued out from this court the writ of habeas…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of Petersburg v. MetzkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hough v. Jasper County Light & Fuel Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- City of Holton v. TatlockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908