Smothers v. City of Jackson

Mississippi Supreme Court
Smothers v. City of Jackson, 92 Miss. 327 (Miss. 1908)
45 So. 982
Mayes

Smothers v. City of Jackson

Opinion of the Court

Mayes, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

By ordinance of the city of Jackson it is provided that all ■offenses made misdemeanors under the state laws shall constitute offenses against the municipality when committed within its limits. The effect of this ordinance is to incorporate into the city ordinances all laws of the state of Mississippi of the grade of misdemeanors. In the case of Winfield v. City of Jackson, 89 Miss., 272, 42 South., 183, this ordinance was upheld. It is prospective in its operation, and includes, not only the offenses named in the statute at the date of its adoption, but all offenses *330of the grade included within the ordinance which may be subsequently passed by the legislature. 26 Am. & Eng. Ency of Law (2d ed.), p. 660, note 2; Id., p. 714.

On the trial of this case, and over the objection of the defendant, the court admitted testimony as to the reputation of defendant. It was shown by certain witnesses that defendant had the reputation of being a “blind tiger” keeper, meaning one engaged in the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The reputation of defendant had not been placed in issue by herself, nor had she introduced a single witness. We think the action of the court in admitting this testimony over the objection of defendant was error.

Eor that reason, the case is reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name
Emma Smothers v. City of Jackson
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Cbiminal Law and Procedure. Municipalities. Ordinance. Misdemeanors. Sale of intoxicants. Code 1906, § 3400. An ordinance making all offenses that amount to misdemeanors under the state laws offenses against the municipality, when committed within its limits, includes all offenses that the legislature may subsequently declare to be misdemeanors. 2. Same. Reputation. Evidence. Evidence of the reputation of the accused as one engaged in the unlawful sale of intoxicants is inadmissible-when the accused has introduced no evidence as to reputation.