Matteson v. City of Eustis
| Decision Date | 28 July 1939 |
| Citation | 190 So. 558,140 Fla. 591 |
| Parties | MATTESON v. CITY OF EUSTIS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1939.
En Banc.
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Lake County; J. C. B. Koonce, Judge.
F. W Matteson was convicted under an ordinance of the City of Eustis, Florida, for disturbing the peace, and to review the judgment, which was affirmed on writ of error by the circuit court, he brings certiorari.
Writ quashed.
COUNSEL Harry P. Johnson, of Tavares, for petitioner.
Buie & Hippler, of Eustis, for respondent.
F. W Matteson has his home and resides in a residential district within the corporate limits of the city of Eustis, Florida. He moved his industrial plant, to-wit, a small planer, rip saw, and sticker into his back yard and operated it for a livelihood. Such operation becoming obnoxious to some of his neighbors, he was arrested and prosecuted under a warrant charging 'that F. W. Matteson did then and there disturb the peace and quiet of the City of Eustis, Florida, and of certain citizens and their families, and did make or cause to be made loud, unusual, and offensive noise and disturbance' contrary to Section One, Ordinance 31 of the City.
He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars or, in default thereof, to serve twenty-five days in the city jail. Said judgment was on writ of error affirmed by the Circuit Court and is brought here for review by certiorari.
It is contended that the judgment is void and should be quashed because Ordinance 31 of the City is violative of Sections One and Twelve, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, and the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, U.S.C.A., that its title does not give notice of the subject matter of the Ordinance, that the warrant does not charge a violation of the Ordinance, that the evidence is not sufficient to support the charge, and that the judgment exceeded the maximum fine imposed by the Ordinance.
The Ordinance, the warrant, and the judgment are very poorly and loosely drawn but their purpose is evident and they are shown to have had sufficient of the element of accuracy to accomplish that purpose. The record and the briefs are as loose and inartificially prepared as the warrant and the Ordinance. At every step in the cause, the rules of pleading and construction were given to the discard and the evidence may be taken to prove everything that both sides set out to prove. In fine, it shows that some of petitioner's neighbors slept through the whir and drone of his planer and rip saw and were in no way disturbed by them while others had 'nerves' and for this or other reasons were distracted and driven to desperation.
On the record, the judgment below might be upheld or quashed and an opinion either way made to read plausible. We have reached the conclusion, however, that the judgment should be upheld. The case grows out of a local row propagated by local people; it was tried by a local municipal judge and his judgment was affirmed by a circuit Judge who lives in the next block and who this Court knows to be able, wise, and just. Everybody connected with the case lived within a stone's throw of each other. It would be difficult to generate a more democratic fuss or one among people more competent to prescribe rules of conduct for the good order of their community, to say what noises and odors should be suppressed and to prescribe standards of social and aesthetic conduct for their governance. They are the judges of when a noise is loud and offensive and no court is authorized to overthrow that judgment unless some provision of organic law is invaded. If, in the enforcement of the standards they impose, the oracles of the law should assault the principles of rhetoric, stab the queen's English, and do violence to the rules of nice pleading, we will not hold them in error if justice is shown to have been done and nothing more is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Severson v. Duff
...(vagrancy ordinance), an ordinance challenged for vagueness was tested by the Calbeck "standards." See also Matteson v. City of Eustis, 140 Fla. 591, 190 So. 558 (1939); Nixon v. State, 178 So.2d 620 (Fla.3d D.C.A.1965); City of Miami v. Kobley, 29 Fla.Supp. 142 (Fla.Cir.Ct.Dade Cty.1967).2......
-
Severson v. Duff, 70-322-Civ-J.
...peace ordinances which prohibit making or causing to be made loud, unusual, and offensive noises and disturbances. Matteson v. City of Eustis, 140 Fla. 591, 190 So. 558 (1939), and those which prohibit profane language, and loud and disturbing and obnoxious noises. City of St. Petersburg v.......
-
Booth v. State, 75658
...justice de luxe, no more than the diamond is less a diamond because of the matrix from which it is recovered." Matteson v. City of Eustis, 140 Fla. 591, 190 So. 558, 559 (1939). "Whether justice is administered a la mode or carte blanche is not so material, but it is material that it be adm......
-
Pritikin v. Thurman, 70-148-Civ-TC.
...peace ordinances which prohibit making or causing to be made loud, unusual, and offensive noises and disturbances, Matteson v. City of Eustis, 1939, 140 Fla. 591, 190 So. 558, and which prohibit profane language, and loud and disturbing and obnoxious noises. City of St. Petersburg v. Calbec......