Information v. Oliver

Citations

• 21 S.C. 318

Syllabus

<p>1. Where, in an information in the City Court of Charleston for doing business without the prescribed license, it substantially appeared that the proceeding was in the name of the State, the objection that there was no plaintiff was properly overruled.</p> <p>2. The proper time to object to evidence is when it is offered.</p> <p>3. An ordinance of the City Council of Charleston may, without proof, be brought to the attention of the municipal courts of that city.</p> <p>4. Under information for carrying on a business without the license required by a city ordinance, the prosecuting attorney proved that defendant had carried on such business, but did not prove that defendant had no license. Held, That defendant was properly convicted, the burden of proof as to the license being on him.</p> <p>5. An act of the legislature authorizing a municipal corporation to impose a license tax upon business occupations does not violate sections 12,14, or 41, of article I., nor section 33 of article II. of the constitution of this state.</p>