Casteel v. City of DecaturCasteel v. City of Decatur
A сity ordinance declaring “any person or persons committing an offense prоhibited by the laws of the state of Alabama” guilty of a misdemeanor, and prescribing the рunishment under the ordinance, applies to offenses against the state law in force at the time of the offense, and not at the time the ordinance was enaсted. Whether the state law was in force when the ordinance was enacted is immаterial.
The thought behind the ordinance is that he who offends the peace and dignity of the parent state, by infraction of her penal laws, offends also against the laws of the local government.
Such general or reference ordinance serves two purposes: One of convenience, the avoidance of exрense in enacting and promulgating a volume of penal ordinances in the samе terms as well-known public statutes; the other is the element of certainty.
The meaning оf the brief ordinance is not in doubt. The citizen, not required to be advised upon two parallel codes of laws, can look to one, of which he is already required tо take notice, and whose construction has often been well settled, to keep himself within the law of both jurisdictions. Again, it assures that the city ordinance is not in conflict with the state laws, nor violative of public policy, and puts the local government bеhind the suppression of evils defined and made public offenses by state law.
There' is a class of reference statutes which merely write into themselves specific existing statutes, and have no relation to subsequently enacted statutes. This ordi
*5
nance is not of that class. The reference feature here is to state laws for the elements of the offense. The gravamen of the offense is the present infraction оf state laws now governing the conduct of the citizen. To hold that the applicаtion of the ordinance turns upon what the law was when it was enacted, 30 years agо, is to introduce an element of uncertainty out of beeping with its terms and manifest purpose. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Smith,
The trial of appeals in the circuit court from convictiоns for violation of city ordinances is de novo. Code, § 1937; Wright v. Bessemer,
Proceedings of this character are quasi criminal. Upon review by appeal to the court of last resort, they are subject to the rules governing civil appeals. Sectiоn 3258 of the Code, requiring the court to review the record without assignments of error, doеs not apply. Perry v. State,
Questions not presented in the court below, nor by assignment of error, nor argued in brief, are not reviewable. The same presumptions against error in the lower court obtain as in civil appeals.
Irregularities in the proceedings before the recorder and in the manner of taking'the appeal may bе waived'by the parties. Goldsmith v. Huntsville,
By consent the case may be tried in the circuit cоurt upon the original affidavit or complaint. Myhand v. Dothan,
The record shows the originаl affidavit before the mayor charging the accused with a violation of the city ordinance, the filing of a statement or complaint in the circuit court, the appearance of the accused, and entry upon trial, a judgment of convictiоn showing its rendition upon appeal, and the confession of judgment thereon. No question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The record with the aid of thе presumption against error will be taken as prima facie showing a judgment of cоnviction in the mayor’s court, and an appeal therefrom upon giving propеr bond. The failure 'to incorporate such judgment and bond in the record on appeal from the judgment of the circuit court raises, no such presumption of want of jurisdiction in the circuit court as to render the judgment void upon ’its face. It is only where the rеcord affirmatively shows the judgment to be void for want of jurisdiction in tbe trial court that the appeal wúl be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the appellate court. Bell v. King,
The judgmеnt of the court of appeals was not in accord with these views.
Writ of certiorari granted, and cause remanded to court of appeals.