City of Reno v. Second Judicial District Court in and for Washoe County

• Decision Date: 21 November 1939
• Docket Number: 3245.
• Citation: 95 P.2d 994,59 Nev. 416
• Parties: CITY OF RENO v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF WASHOE et al.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

95 P.2d 994

59 Nev. 416

CITY OF RENO v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF WASHOE et al.

No. 3245.

Supreme Court of Nevada

November 21, 1939

Original certiorari proceedings by the City of Reno against the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe, against William McKnight, Judge of the Court, and Charles Reel and Alvin Rae to review a judgment of the Second Judicial Court holding unconstitutional an ordinance of the City of Reno under which Charles Reel and Alvin Rae were found guilty in the municipal court of the city of Reno.

Judgment affirmed in part and annulled in part.

JAMES DYSART, District Judge, dissenting in part.

Douglas A. Busey, City Atty., of Reno, for petitioner.

Lloyd V. Smith, of Reno, for respondents.

DUCKER Justice.

This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review a judgment of the Second Judicial District Court.

Charles Reel and Alvin Rae, who will be hereinafter referred to as respondents, were complained against in the municipal court of the City of Reno, for a violation of its Ordinance No 480. The complaint alleged that on the 29th day of June 1937, at Reno, in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, they "did watch, beset, and picket the premises of Berg & Hansen, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, said premises being situated at 315 East Street in said city, county and state and the approaches thereto, for the purpose of inducing others to refrain from entering such premises, and from patronizing, transacting business with and negotiating with the said owner, Berg & Hansen, Inc., and Lindley & Co., occupant of such premises."

In a second count it was alleged: "That at said time and place the said defendants, in association and agreement with Charles Rowan, H. A. Anderson, and John Ferrari, did assemble, congregate and meet together in the vicinity of the premises being situated at 315 East Street in said city, county and state, and upon the streets, approaches, and places adjacent thereto, for the purpose of inducing others to refrain from entering such premises and from patronizing, transacting business with and negotiating with the said owner thereof, Berg & Hansen, Inc., and Lindley & Co., occupant of such premises."

Ordinance 480, omitting title, reads:

"Section 1. Whoever shall watch, beset or picket the premises of another, where any person is employed, or any approach thereto, or any place or approach thereto, where such employee lodges or resides, for the purpose of inducing any such employee, by compulsion, threats, coercion, intimidation, or by any act of violence, or by putting such employee in fear, to quit his or her employment or to refrain from seeking or freely entering into employment, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than Ten Dollars, ($10.00), nor more than Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars to which may be added imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days in the City Jail.

Section 2. Whoever shall watch, beset or picket the premises of another, or any approach thereto for the purpose of inducing others to refrain from entering such premises, or from patronizing, transacting business with or negotiating with the owner or occupant of such premises, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than Ten ($10.00) Dollars, nor more than Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars, to which may be added imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days in the City Jail.

Section 3. Whoever, in association or agreement with one or more persons, shall assemble, congregate or meet together in the vicinity of any premises where other persons are employed, or upon the streets, approaches or places adjacent thereto, for the purpose of inducing any such employee, by compulsion, threats, coercion, intimidation or by any act of violence, or by putting such employee in fear, to quit his or her employment therein or to refrain from seeing (seeking) or freely entering into employment therein, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than Ten ($10.00) Dollars, nor more than Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars, to which may be added imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days in the City Jail.

Section 4. Whoever, in association or agreement with one or more persons, shall assemble, congregate, or meet together in the vicinity of the premises of another, or upon the streets, approaches, or places adjacent thereto, for the purpose of inducing others to refrain from entering such premises or from patronizing, transacting business with or negotiating with the owner thereof, of such premises, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than Ten ($10.00) Dollars, nor more than Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars to which may be added imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days, in the City Jail.

Section 5. Whoever, for the purpose of compelling, coercing or inducing any persons to quit his or her employment, or to refrain from seeking or freely entering into employment, shall utter to or within the hearing of such person or persons, any derogatory or ap porbrious or indecent epithets or language or gestures or threats of violence, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than Ten ($10.00) Dollars, nor more than Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars, to which may be added imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days in the City Jail. ***"

The remaining part of the Ordinance is not involved.

The respondents were tried and found guilty in the municipal court and a fine of $10 was assessed to each. They appealed to said district court and the case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and set aside the judgment of the municipal court. The facts stipulated upon which the case was submitted in the district court, are as follows:

"It is hereby stipulated by and between the respective parties hereto, acting by and through their attorneys, that the facts upon which the above-entitled criminal action is hereby submitted to the Court for its decision, are as follows:

That Berg & Hansen, Inc., is a Nevada corporation and is the owner of the premises situated at 315 East Street, in Reno Washoe County, Nevada. That Lindley & Co. is the occupant of said premises. That a large warehouse is situated on the premises and Lindley & Co. conducts a wholesale grocery business at said warehouse; that at least 90% of the merchandise handled by the said Lindley & Co. is purchased outside of the State of Nevada and thereafter brought into Nevada for resale, and that a portion of the merchandise sold by the said Lindley & Co. is sold outside of the State of Nevada. That said warehouse has four large doors in its front on East Street which doors constitute the business entrance to the warehouse and the principal approaches to the warehouse from East Street run to these doors. That groceries and supplies in truck loads are unloaded and loaded at these doors and the trucks engaged in such unloading and loading use the aforesaid approaches to said doors from East Street. That many trucks load and unload at said doors and use said approaches every day and the drivers of many of said trucks are the agents of persons, and persons patronizing, transacting business with and negotiating with Lindley & Co.:

That on the 29th day of June, 1937, at about the hour of 9 o'clock A. M. of said day, and for a considerable period of time thereafter, Charles Reel and Alvin Rae walked back and forth along the sidewalk and street and in front of the aforementioned approaches to the side doors, carrying banners upon each of which was written the words 'Lindley & Co., Unfair to Organized Labor.' That their purpose in doing as aforesaid was to induce any and all truck drivers and teamsters carrying groceries and supplies for Lindley & Co., to refrain from entering said premises and from patronizing, transacting and negotiating business with Lindley & Co. That at said time a large number of people gathered and congregated about said premises. That Charles Rowan, Alvin Rae, Charles Reel, H. A. Anderson and John Ferrari were present in the vicinity of said premises at said time and met together upon East Street and upon said approaches to said premises. That their purpose in doing as aforesaid was to induce any and all truck drivers and teamsters carrying groceries or supplies for Lindley & Co., to refrain entering said premises and from patronizing, transacting business with and negotiating with Lindley & Co. That Alvin Rae and Charles Reel did so meet and assemble at said time and said place with Charles Rowan, H. A. Anderson and John Ferrari by agreement. That at a meeting of the teamsters union shortly prior to said June 29th, 1937, said teamsters union by a unanimous vote, instructed defendants, Charles Reel and Alvin Rae, to picket said premises and approaches, at which meeting H. A. Anderson, John Ferrari and Charles Rowan were present and at which meeting said Charles Reel and Alvin Rae agreed with H. A. Anderson, John Ferrari and Charles Rowan to assemble and meet together in the vicinity of said premises for said purpose aforesaid.

That said Alvin Rae and Charles Reel at said time and place did not make any overt or actual threats and commited no acts constituting overt or actual intimidation, coercion or violence.

That during all of the time herein mentioned and at said time and place, the employees of Lindley & Co. were not members of any labor unions and were not members of the Teamsters' Union. That Charles Reel, Alvin Rae, Charles Rowan, H. A. Anderson and John Ferrari were not, at any time herein mentioned, and at said time and place aforesaid, employees of Lindley & Co.

That said acts aforesaid resulted from the refusal of Lindley & Co. to

...