Citation Numbers: 10 So. 2d 487, 151 Fla. 760, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 1260
Judges: Chapman, Brown, Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Adams, Thomas
Filed Date: 11/13/1942
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Challenged on this appeal is an ordinance enacted by the Town of Malone, Jackson County, Florida, making it unlawful for any person within the incorporate limits of said town to transport, sell or possess with intent to sell, intoxicating liquors. The terms of the ordinance attempt to regulate intoxicating liquors containing an alcoholic content greater than 3.2%. The Town of Malone was incorporated by Chapter 6370, Acts of 1911, Laws of Florida. Henry Stone was convicted in the municipal court of the Town of Malone for the violation of the aforesaid ordinance and on a habeas corpus proceeding was discharged from custody by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Florida, and the Town of Malone has perfected an appeal therefrom to this Court.
In the Court below counsel for Stone contended that the Town of Malone, under the provisions of *Page 761 Chapter 6370, Acts of 1911, Laws of Florida, and Section 3047 C.G.L., was without the charter power to enact the aforesaid ordinance making it unlawful to transport, possess and sell intoxicating liquors within the incorporate limits of the Town of Malone because Chapter 6370, supra, did not authorize the enactment of the ordinance and Section 3047 C.G.L., being Section 1071, Gen. Stats. 1906, was specifically repealed by Chapter 16774, Acts of 1935, Laws of Florida. Subsection (b) of Section 19 sustains this contention and the lower court concluded that Sub-section (b) of Section 19 of Chapter 16774, supra, was controlling.
Section 2949 C.G.L. confers upon all municipalities of Florida the power to enact such ordinances and laws necessary for the preservation of peace and morals, the suppression of riots, disorderly assemblies and for the order and government of all municipalities, provided that the ordinances and laws so enacted by the municipalities shall be consistent with the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the State of Florida; and, provided further, that the punishment for the violation of the ordinances and laws so enacted shall not exceed a fine of $500.00 or imprisonment for a period of more than sixty days.
This provision of the general power conferred upon all municipalities was considered by this Court in the case of Bailey v. Poitier,
The case of Tittsworth v. Akin,
The case of Sloan v. Hutchingson,
"It is our view that a municipality in the State of Florida has the right, under its general police powers, to adopt and enforce police regulations in the form of municipal ordinances, designed to forbid and prohibit the keeping in places of business engaged in the sale of legitimate goods to the public, any intoxicating liquors or beverages for sale in said place of business aforesaid, except as otherwise expressly permitted by general state law, and that such power exists on the part of such municipality whether it be located in a 'wet' or in a 'dry' county. See: Tittsworth v. Akin,
The case of State ex rel. Floyd v. Noel,
"It is so well settled that no citation of authority is required to support the statement that a municipality exercising the powers inherent in municipal corporations may reasonably regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors and in providing such reasonable regulations may prohibit the sale of such liquors within certain hours and also may prohibit the sale of liquors within certain zones."
It appears from the record that Jackson County had voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors and the Town of Malone is located therein. It is our conclusions that the town of Malone, independently of its charter provisions, being Chapter 6370, supra, and Section 3047 C.G.L., under the police power granted to all cities and towns had and possessed the power to enact the aforesaid ordinance. See Sloan v. Hutchingson, supra.
The ordinance, being within the general grant of police power to all towns and cities of Florida, is valid and the judgment discharging the petitioner below, accordingly, is hereby reversed.
It is so ordered.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., dissenting.