Hall v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 08 September 1948
• Docket Number: Record No. 3407.
• Citation: 188 Va. 72
• Parties: DAN LEROY HALL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 72

188 Va. 72

DAN LEROY HALL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 3407.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 8, 1948.

Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan, Staples and Miller, JJ.

1. TRESPASS — Constitutionality of Statute. — There is nothing in section 4480-a of the Code of 1942 (Michie), which provides a penalty for going on the premises of another after having been forbidden to do so, when properly applied, which infringes upon any privilege or right guaranteed to the accused by the Federal Constitution.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Amendments 1 and 14 of the United States Constitution — Not Extended to Require Acceptance or Rejection of Religious Literature. — While the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of worship have been greatly extended by the Supreme Court of the United States in its construction of amendments 1 and 14 of the Constitution of the United States they have not been expanded to the extent that a householder or some member of his family must meet Jehovah's Witnesses at the door and accept or reject religious literature offered.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Amendments 1 and 14 of the United States Constitution Do Not Affect Rights of One Citizen against Another. — Neither amendment 1 nor amendment 14 of the United States Constitution adds anything to the rights of one citizen as against another, nor do they inhibit action by individuals in respect of their property.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Right of Freedom of Speech and Religious Worship — Right of Jehovah's Witnesses to Enter Apartment against Wishes of Occupants. — Jehovah's Witnesses, or others having similar pursuits, have no constitutional right to enter an apartment house or multiple dwelling house, against the wishes of its owner or occupants.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Right of Freedom of Speech and Religious Worthip — Right of Jehovah's Witnesses to Enter Apartment against Wishes of Occupants — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an appeal from a fine of five dollars for trespass imposed on a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses. Accused with four other Jehovah's Witnesses entered an apartment house for the purpose of calling upon the tenants in each apartment to deliver religious tracts and to invite occupants to attend a lecture. The entry and use by the accused was contrary to a rule of the apartment house which prohibited any visitors calling upon tenants unless their names were confirmed and their intended visit was announced to the tenant from the desk in the lobby. Accused continued his visits after having been informed of the rule and warned to desist and contended that a conviction for trespass violated his right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of worship guaranteed to him by amendments 1 and 14 of the Constitution of the United States, sections 12 and 16 of the Constitution of Virginia and section 34 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.

Held: That the rule adopted by the apartment house with the knowledge and consent of the tenants, regulating the conduct of visitors inside the building, was valid and reasonable and did not infringe on any right or privilege guaranteed the accused by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Virginia or Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.

Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond. Hon. Jno. L. Ingram, judge presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Hayden C. Covington, Thos. H. Stone, Grover C. Powell and Roy A. Swayze, for the plaintiff in error.

J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General and Ballard Baker, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

HUDGINS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The accused, by this writ of error, seeks to reverse a judgment imposing a $5 fine upon him for trespass, on the ground that the conviction violates his right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of worship guaranteed to him by amendments I and XIV of the Constitution of the United States, sections 12 and 16 of the Constitution of Virginia, and section 34 of the Virginia Code, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.

There is no substantial conflict in the testimony. The Monroe Prestwould Corporation owns a building located at 809 West Franklin Street, Richmond, Virginia, and known as Monroe Terrace Apartments. This is a twelve story structure containing 60 apartment units occupied by between two and three hundred people. The main entrance is a front door leading from the sidewalk to a large lobby on the ground floor. This lobby, the two elevators, the two stairways extending from the ground to the twelfth story, and the hallways are under the supervision and control of an attendant usually found at a desk placed on the far side of the front entrance to the lobby. Each of the sixty apartment units is entered from a hall, and on or near the door opening into each apartment is a button which, on being pressed, rings a doorbell inside the apartment.

The accused testified that he was a regularly ordained minister of Jehovah's Witnesses which is "an unincorporated body or force of missionary evangelists." This unincorporated body is under the control and direction of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, a corporation organized under the laws of New York and Pennsylvania. This corporation divides the United States into districts and assigns to each district an evangelistic worker. Richmond, Virginia, is in a district assigned to the accused who is directed to preach the beliefs of the corporation. He claimed to be doing this "under a God-given right to preach in public places, on the streets and sidewalks, from door to door, and whether in apartments or whether in the country or whether in the deepest jungles of Africa."

He had arranged to hold a public lecture at 8 P.M. on August 20, in Monroe Park, a public park across the street from Monroe Terrace. Between 7 and 8 P.M. on that day he and four other Jehovah's Witnesses entered Monroe Terrace for the purpose of calling upon the tenants in each apartment to deliver religious tracts and to invite the occupants to attend the lecture. Neither the accused nor his associates sought permission to visit the tenants. The accused was assigned to call upon the occupants of the tenth eleventh, and twelfth floors and used the elevator for that purpose. After he had completed his door-to-door calls upon these floors, he went outside the building where he was informed by a Mr. Cahoon, one of his associates, that the work had not been completed. He and Mr. Cahoon reentered the building and went to the desk, and according to the testimony of the accused, "Mr. Cahoon told them we were engaged in missionary work and were putting on a lecture in the park; the lady said to give her the handbills and she would see they were put out. About that time it was past seven and the lecture was to be at eight and Mr. Cahoon explained the obligation was upon our shoulders and besides, it would be the same as some Western Union boy delivering the handbills, that the obligation rests upon us and we explained this obligation was on us and that it was important for us to call upon the people. She said she could not give permission. He said, `I am not asking for permission, and if you will not let the elevator girls take (us) up we will have to walk.'"

These two Jehovah's Witnesses, over the protest of the attendant, walked up the stairs and were ringing the different doorbells when Mr. G. O. Parrish, the manager of the apartments, stopped them and informed them that one of the rules governing the occupants of the building which had been adopted by the owner with the knowledge and acquiescence of the tenants, forbade any and all visitors from using the hallways to call upon the tenants unless their names were given and their intended visit was announced to the tenant from the desk in the lobby. To the explanation of this rule the accused said: "I wasn't interested and cut him off and said I would go away and leave him alone, that it was up to the people to tell us whether or not they wished to see us and if they don't want to be seen we don't bother them." The accused was told to leave the building and not return unless he was prepared to comply with the rule. He and his associates left the building, thus closing this incident.

The accused arranged another public lecture to be held in Monroe Park on August 27, at 8 P.M. He and his associates reentered the apartment building. This time they stopped at the desk of the attendant who informed them that she could not let them go upstairs unless they complied with the rule regulating the calls of all visitors. To that the accused replied that he was not asking for permission but was going upstairs anyway and merely wanted to inform her that the strangers in the hallways were "just ministers doing their work" and for her to inform the occupants "not to be alarmed, that it was all right." The accused in answer to the following question, said: "Q. You went in there in defiance of what Mr. Parrish told you and the lady at the desk told you because you believed you knew the law and that you had a right to go in? A. Yes, I stand on the law of the land and the law of the Almighty."

While the five were using the upstairs hallways for the purpose of distributing their tracts and invitations to attend the public meeting, some of the tenants complained to the management. Shortly thereafter the accused was arrested, charged with unlawful trespass, and convicted as heretofore stated.

The statute under which the accused was prosecuted is Chapter 165, Acts of 1934 (sec. 4480-a, Michie's 1942 Code) which provides: "That if any person shall without authority of law go upon or remain upon the lands or premises of another, after having been forbidden to do so by...