Hechinger v. City of Maysville

• Decision Date: 20 June 1900
• Citation: 57 S.W. 619
• Parties: HECHINGER v. CITY OF MAYSVILLE. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

57 S.W. 619

HECHINGER v. CITY OF MAYSVILLE. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Mason county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Joseph Hechinger was convicted of violating a city ordinance, and he appeals. Reversed.

J. N Kehoe, for appellant.

Thomas M. Wood, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

The sole question presented for decision is the validity or constitutionality of the following ordinance, being an ordinance of the city of Maysville, a fourth-class city. The ordinance reads as follows: "Be it ordained by the board of council of the city of Maysville that it shall be unlawful for person or persons other than the husband, father, brother or male relative, to associate, escort, converse or loiter with any female known as a common prostitute, either by day or by night, upon any of the streets or alleys of the city of Maysville, and any person or persons other than the said husband, father, brother or other male relative, so offending shall upon conviction thereof before the police court in said city be fined not less than $5.00 nor more than $20.00." The appellant was fined under the ordinance in question, and prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court for the purpose of testing the validity of the ordinance, as provided by law. The circuit court adjudged the ordinance valid, and to reverse that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

We have carefully considered the very able briefs filed by counsel for appellant and appellee. In the main, the arguments are sound; but the question is whether the authorities cited by either counsel sustain his contention. Manifestly, the ordinance was intended to accomplish a proper and laudable object. But it seems to us that it is not properly guarded. It will be seen that, in addition to the husband, father, or brother, any male relative may escort, converse, loiter, or associate with the objectionable character mentioned. There can be no good reason in exempting any male relative from the operation of the ordinance except a husband, father, or brother. It would also seem that a mother or sister should be allowed the same privilege as allowed to the father or brother. Any person should be allowed to converse with such a female long enough to transact any necessary and legitimate business, and no one should be punished for a violation of an ordinance such as the one under consideration unless the party so offending had knowledge or...