State ex rel. Burton v. Williams

Citations

• 11 S.C. 288

Syllabus

<p>1. An ordinance to prevent the keeping of a bawdy-house is clearly within the scope of the powers conferred upon a municipal corporation, whose charter authorizes “by-laws, rules and regulations * * * for preserving peace, order and good government.”</p> <p>2. The intendant of a town, “vested with all the power and jurisdiction given to trial justices of this state,” and authorized to “hold court for the-trial of violations of town ordinances,” and “ to punish by fine or imprisonment, in his discretion, or both,” has power to try all violations of the town ordinances, although such violation may involve a common law offence. And it seems he may summon and impanel a jury, when demanded.</p> <p>3. Such trial by the intendant being “ provided for by law,” is not the trial of a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions, under Article IV., Section 18, of the constitution.</p> <p>4. Every ordinance passed by a municipal corporation under the powers conferred by. its charter, and within the limits prescribed, derives its authority from the legislative power of the state, and has the force and effect of a legislative act within the municipality. Semble.</p> <p>5. When the same act violates two statutes, it involves two offences, for which two punishments may be inflicted. Semble. Cases referred to, and the authority of Schroeder v. Oity Council, 3 Brev. 553, questioned.</p>