City of Watertown v. Christnacht

• Citation: 39 S.D. 290,164 N.W. 62
• Decision Date: 23 August 1917
• Docket Number: No. 4177.,4177.
• Parties: CITY OF WATERTOWN v. CHRISTNACHT et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota

39 S.D. 290

164 N.W. 62

CITY OF WATERTOWN

v.CHRISTNACHT et al.

No. 4177.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Aug. 23, 1917.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Watertown; Irvin H. Meyers, Judge.

Maurice Christnacht and Patsy McAleer were convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Watertown, and they appeal. Judgment reversed, and trial court directed to discharge defendants.Clay Carpenter, of Watertown, for appellants.

GATES, P. J.

An ordinance of the city of Watertown declares, among other things, the following:

“Sec. 17. (Pimp). Any male person *** who shall be found associating with females known or reputed as common courtesans or prostitutes, or who shall be found in any company with any female known or reputed as a common prostitute or courtesan, *** within the limits of the city of Watertown, shall be deemed a pimp, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding fifty dollars nor less than ten dollars, and imprisonment for any determinate period not exceeding ten days, nor less than five days.”

The defendants were arrested, tried, convicted, and adjudged to pay a fine of $25 and costs, under a complaint which charged that at the city of Watertown they, “on and before the 16th day of November, A. D. 1916, were then and there unlawfully found associating with females known and reputed as common courtesans and prostitutes,” and which complaint further stated the names of such females. From the judgment, defendants appeal.

It is urged, and we think correctly, that this ordinance is unconstitutional. In Pinkerton v. Verberg, 78 Mich. 573, 44 N. W. 579, 7 L. R. A. 507, 18 Am. St. Rep. 473, the court well said:

“Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our Constitution and laws, consists of the right of locomotion-to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens.”

Quoting the above, the Supreme Court of Missouri said in City of St. Louis v. Roche, 128 Mo. 541, 31 S. W. 915:

“Our Constitution and laws guarantee to every citizen the right to go where and when he pleases, and to associate with whom he pleases, exacting from him only that he conduct himself in a decent and orderly manner, that he disturb no one, and that he interfere with the rights of no other citizen.”

In that case it was held that an ordinance prohibiting association with thieves, pick-pockets, etc., was-

“absolutely invalid, on the broad ground that its direct effect is to invade and necessarily destroy one, at least, of...