State v. McConnell
| Citation | 47 A. 267,70 N.H. 294 |
| Parties | STATE v. McCONNELL |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1900 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Complaint against Robert McConnell for addressing offensive, derisive, and annoying words to one Cate while lawfully in a public highway. Facts agreed. The defendant addressed the objectionable words to Cate when she was lawfully in a public highway, 40 rods distant from any dwelling house. If this constituted the offense charged, the defendant is to be adjudged guilty. So ordered.
George M. Fletcher and Sargent & Niles, for the State.
Almon F. Burbank, for defendant.
CHASE, J. "No person shall address any offensive, derisive, or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend, or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation." Pub. St c. 264, § 2. This provision originated with the act of 1885, entitled "An act in amendment of section 1 of chapter 269 of the General Laws [now section 1, c. 264, Pub. St.], and to aid and protect the laboring and manufacturing interests of the state." Laws 1885, c. 76. The purpose of the act seems to have been to insure to persons freedom in the pursuit of their lawful occupations. Upon the revision of the statutes in 1891 the subject was incorporated into an independent section, and the provisions in respect to it were broadened in scope and purpose. Commissioners' Report, Pub. St. c. 264, § 2. The place where the offense might be committed was changed from any street along which the person addressed might be passing "to, from, or about his lawful business or occupation" to "any street or other public place" in which he might lawfully be. The purpose of the amended section was to preserve the public peace, not merely to insure the freedom of labor. State v. Brown, 68 N. H. 200, 201, 38 Atl. 731. The presence of others than the offender and the person addressed is not necessary to complete the offense. Any noise or exclamation made in the presence and hearing of another, with intent to deride, offend, or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business, is sufficient. A person is quite as likely to be prevented from pursuing his business, or to be provoked to the commission of a breach of the peace when such language is addressed to him in a common highway as when it is addressed to him in a city street. The wound, fear, or spirit of revenge produced by the language does not depend upon the locality where it is used. The circumstance of location— whether a street, highway, or other public place—does not affect the evil which the statute was designed to guard against The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
...283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117, 73 A.L.R. 1484, is not present. 7 State v. Brown, 68 N.H. 200, 38 A. 731; State v. McConnell, 70 N.H. 294, 47 A. 267. 8 We do not have here the problem of Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888. Even if the interpretative ......
-
UWM Post v. Board of Regents of U. of Wis.
...the remark is addressed.'" See id. at 573, 62 S.Ct. at 770 (citing State v. Brown, 68 N.H. 200, 38 A. 731 (1895); State v. McConnell, 70 N.H. 294, 47 A. 267 (1900). The Chaplinsky court held that the limited scope of Chapter 378 § 2, as construed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, did not ......
-
State v. Chaplinsky
...the words were addressed by one to another in a public highway, even though no third person was present to hear the words. State v. McConnell, 70 N.H. 294, 47 A. 267. The complaining witness, a woman, was called a bitch, with other obscene words not thought necessary to be printed in the re......
-
Svedberg v. Stamness
...315 U.S. at 573, 62 S.Ct. at 770, 86 L.Ed. at 1036 (citing State v. Brown, 68 N.H. 200, 38 A. 731 (1895); quoting State v. McConnell, 70 N.H. 294, 47 A. 267, 267 (1900)). It is not sufficient, however, if words merely offend, cause one to be indignant, or rouse anger in the person hearing t......