Giardina v. City of Greenville
Giardina v. City of Greenville
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Tried by the ordinance under which the appellant’s counsel says the affidavit was made and the conviction had, the affidavit is bad, and tested by the ordinance relied on by the counsel of the appellee to'sustain the conviction, the affidavit is not good, and the motion to quash should have been sustained. The thing mentioned in the affidavit (“barrels”) is not charged to have been placed upon the sidewalk by the defendant, and therefore the offense denounced by the twenty-sixth clause, page 44, of the charter and ordinances of Green-ville is not charged; and barrels are neither “ straw, chips, dirt, shells, tin cans, iron hoops, swill, nails, iron, glass, fruit peelings, melon rinds, shavings, rags, hair, or such rubbish,” although they might contain such things, or have iron hoops
Reversed, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance 'with lato.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- E. Giardina v. The City of Greenville
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1, Municipal Okdinancio. Violation. Placing goods on sidewalk. Sufficiency of charge. Under an ordinance making it unlawful to place any goods on a sidewalk, an affidavit charging defendant with obstructing a sidewalk by allowing barrels to remain thereon, without averring that he placed them there, charges no offense. 2. iSamb. Strictness. Articles designated. Ejusdein generis. An ordinance which prohibits placing on a sidewalk “ straw, chips, dirt, shells, tin cans, iron hoops, swill, nails, iron, glass, fruit peelings, melon rinds, shavings, rags, hair or such rubbish,” is not violated by allowing barrels to remain on the sidewalk, obstructing it. Though they may contain the things mentioned, or have iron hoops and nails in their makeup, barrels are not embraced in the enumeration.