City of Yankton v. Douglass

Citations

• 8 S.D. 440
• 66 N.W. 923
• 1896 S.D. LEXIS 43

Syllabus

<p>1. A complaint made to a police magistrate, under an ordinance of the city of Yankton, which declares “that any person who, within the limits of this city, shall keep and maintain a tippling shop, * * * shall upon conviction be fined,” etc., in which it is charged that the defendant “at the> city and county of Yankton, on the 17th day of September, A. D. 1893, with force and arms, did keep and maintain a tippling shop, * * * * within the limits of the city of Yankton, state of South Dakota, against the peace and dignity of said city of Yankton, and contrary to the form of the ordinance in such case made and provided,” states facts sufficient to constitue a public offense under such ordinance. Haney, J., dissenting.</p> <p>1. When an appeal is taken from a justice’s court upon questions of both law and fact, the case is tried anew in the appellate court, and no statement of the case is provided for; and in such case the appellate court cannot review alleged errors of the justice’s court.</p> <p>3. Improper remarks, made by counsel, on the trial of a cause, in the presence of the jury, which the jury are at once directed by the court to disregard, will not, ordinarily, constitute sufficient ground for a reversal of,the judgment, as this court will presume that the jury have followed the direction of the court, and disregarded them.</p> <p>4. An act may constitute a penal offense under the laws of the state and further penalties, under proper legislative authority, may be imposed for its commission by municipal laws: and the enforcement of the one would not preclude the enforcement of the other.</p> <p>6. There is no conflict between the power conferred by a city charter to “prohibit and suppress tippling shops,” and the prohibitory liquor law of this state; and the provisions of the charter were not repealed by such law.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Judge.</p>