Commonwealth v. Crowninshield

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: LATHROP
• Citation: 187 Mass. 221,72 N.E. 963
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CROWNINSHIELD.
• Decision Date: 05 January 1905

187 Mass. 221
72 N.E. 963

COMMONWEALTH
v.
CROWNINSHIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 5, 1905.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; John A. Aiken, Judge.

One Crowninshield was convicted of violating a rule of the board of park commissioners, and brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

[187 Mass. 222]

[72 N.E. 964]

M. J. Sughrue, First Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Hill, Bangs, Barlow & Homans and B. Wendell, Jr., for defendant.

LATHROP, J.

The defendant was found guilty of violating a rule of the board of park commissioners of the city of Boston, which provides that ‘no person shall ride or drive in Commonwealth avenue at a rate of speed exceeding eight miles an hour.’ At the trial it appeared that the defendant, on November 13, 1903, was running an automobile at a rate of speed exceeding eight miles an hour in Commonwealth avenue between Exeter street and Fairfield street. Many objections were raised in the court below, and come before us on the defendant's exceptions. So much of Commonwealth avenue as lies between Arlington street and the intersection of the avenue with Beacon street was taken for park purposes by the board of park commissioners on June 29, 1894.

1. It is contended that the board of park commissioners never acquired any jurisdiction over the part of Commonwealth avenue where the offense was committed. This depends on the construction to be given to St. 1893, p. 934, c. 300, § 1. This [187 Mass. 223]section is as follows: ‘Any board of park commissioners constituted under the authority of chapter one hundred and fifty-four of the Acts of the year eighteen hundred and eighty-two as amended by chapter two hundred and forty of the Acts of the year eighteen hundred and ninety, or of any special acts, shall have power to connect any public park, boulevard or driveway under its control, with any part of any city or town in this commonwealth wherein it has jurisdiction, by selecting and taking any connecting street or streets, or part thereof, leading to such park, and shall also have power to accept and add to any such park any street or part thereof which adjoins and runs parallel with any boundary line of the same: provided, that the consent of the public authorities having control of any such street or streets so far as selected and taken, and also the consent in writing of the owners of a majority of the frontage of the lots and lands abutting on such street or streets so far as taken, shall be first obtained.’ It appears that the public authorities having control of Commonwealth avenue assented to the selection and taking of the portion of the avenue taken, and that the consent in writing of the owners of a majority of the frontage of the lots and lands abutting on the avenue has been obtained. The contention of the defendant is that as the board of park commissioners has no control over the Public Garden, which abuts on Arlington street for the entire length of that street, it could not take the avenue for the purpose of connecting the Public Garden with the Back Bay Fens. But we are of opinion that the language of the statute is broader than this. The board of park commissioners is expressly given the power ‘to...