82 First Annual Report 



"I have not stopped to criticise the manner in which the ordinance is 

 brought in the record. It is th» basis of the action, and by law must be 

 filed, at least in the Circuit court, for the court cannot take judicial notice of 

 it. It must be read at the trial and brought on the record as the basis of the 

 suit. Abbott's Trial Evidence, page 770. Mans. Digest, Sec. 2, 835. 



"I suppose as no point is made in argument upon the motion of appel- 

 lant to dismiss the appeal that it was thought to be unnecessary to argue it. 

 Cardon's testimony was taken upon that motion, to prove merely that an 

 appeal was in fact prayed, and to make him amend his transcript, and the 

 Court overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal. 



"Appeals from Mayor's Courts regulated by Mansfield, Sec. 2,432, 2,435 

 2,436, required nothing but a bond; Perrin ex parte, 41 Ark., 194, the Juris- 

 diction of Justice of the Peace; appeal from the mayor taken in the same 

 manner as from Justice. Mansfield, Sec. 797. This is a quasi criminal pro- 

 ceeding; if so, the appeal was rightly perfected. But if governed by civil 

 code, then it is not to be dismissed for informality. Mansfield 4,141 mode 

 of appeals in civil case 4,134, 4,135; and it was amendable. But all that was 

 required was the filing of the bond, as the proceeding was criminal. 



"It is desired that the Court pass upon the question, however, for the 

 profession are in great doubt as to what is meant by appeal from Mayor, as 

 in case of Justice of Peace, as provided in Sec. 797. In view of the fact that 

 there are two modes of appealing from a justice — one by above sections 2,432 

 2,436, in criminal cases; the other in civil cases, by sections 4,134. 4,135, 

 Mansfield, which differs from the mode of appeal in criminal cases. I sub- 

 mit that when the Mayor sits in a misdemeanor case, whether for violating an 

 ordinance or a law, the appeal must follow criminal procedure. If he sits as 

 a Justice of the Peace in a civil case the appeal must be taken according to 

 sections 4,i34, 4,i35- 



DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, JUNE 22, 1889. 



127 (Crim.) City of Arkadelphia vs. Z. A. Clark. 



"The Appellee, Clark, was convicted in the Mayor's Court of Arkadel- 

 phia, for a violation of the city ordinance. The ordinance under the 

 prosecution was had provided that it shall be unlawful for any person or per- 

 sons to own, keep or raise bees in the city of Arkadelphia, the same having 

 been declared a nuisance. Upon an appeal to the Circuit Court, that court 

 sustained a demurrer filed by the defendant, and dismissed the prosecution. 



"Held — Neither the keeping, owning or raising of bees is in itself a 

 nuisance. Bees may become a nuisance in a city, but whether they are so 

 or not, is a question to be judicially determined in each case. 



"The ordinance under consideration undertakes to make each of the acts 

 named a nuisance, without regard to the fact whether it is so or not, or 

 whether bees in general have become a nuisance in the city. It is therefore 

 too broad, and invalid.' 



Affirmed. 



