Nelson v. City of Natchez
| Decision Date | 13 November 1944 |
| Docket Number | 35655. |
| Citation | 19 So.2d 747,197 Miss. 26 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | NELSON v. CITY OF NATCHEZ. |
Engle & Laub, of Natchez, for appellant.
Gerard H. Brandon, of Natchez, for appellee.
The City of Natchez has an ordinance which makes it a criminal offense against the city for any person to profanely swear or curse or use vulgar or indecent language in any public place within its corporate limits. Appellant was charged with having violated this ordinance in a public place, namely, in the Splendid Cafe at the intersection of Franklin and Union Streets. The charge was amply proved.
There are differences in the literal purport of the term "public place", and appellant contends that when the rule of strict construction is applied to the penal ordinance in question, it must be held to include only such places as are owned by the public and controlled or superintended by public agents, not a place privately owned and operated, such as is the restaurant wherein the conduct here complained of occurred.
Certainly, the general rule is that penal statutes must be strictly construed. At the same time courts are required to take a reasonable and common-sense view of the evil at which a statute is directed and the protection which it is designed to afford; and when these are within the letter of the statute, the enactment is to be construed in accordance with its purpose, although its letter would admit a narrower interpretation. Bobo v. Commissioners, 92 Miss. 792 812, 46 So. 819; State v. Stigler, 179 Miss. 276 281, 175 So. 194; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, Secs. 415-417, pp 439-441; and Sec. 660, 59 C.J. p. 1118, note 37(b).
Looking then to the evil at which the ordinance is directed and the protection which it is designed to afford, a public place within the ordinance, and as applied to an enclosure, room or building, must be considered as one wherein, by general invitation, members of the public attend for reasons of business, entertainment, instruction or the like, and are welcome so long as they conform to what is customarily there done. 35 Words & Phrases, Perm.Ed., pp. 258-273, and compare 27 C.J. p. 985, § 92. An eating house is a public place, Neal v. Com., 22 Grat., Va., 917, 918, and a restaurant is an eating house under another name. It is within this definition that a church is held to be a public place. Orf v. State, 147 Miss. 160, 113 So. 202. And so a barber shop. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Christine
...as follows: "of, belonging to, or concerning the people as a whole; of the community at large." The syllabus of Nelson v. City of Natches, 197 Miss. 26, 19 So.2d 747, correctly "A 'public place' within municipal ordinance making it a criminal offense for any person to profanely swear or cur......
-
Wilcher v. State
...is to be construed in accordance with its purpose, although its letter would admit a narrower interpretation." Nelson v. City of Natchez , 197 Miss. 26, 19 So.2d 747 (1944) (citing Bobo , 92 Miss. 792, 46 So. 819 ). In Bobo , this Court said, "[w]e do not think we have ever seen this princi......
-
ABC Interstate Theatres, Inc. v. State
...value to merit First Amendment protection. 413 U.S. at 23-26, 93 S.Ct. at 2614-2616, 37 L.Ed. at 430-432. In Nelson v. City of Natchez, 197 Miss. 26, 19 So.2d 747 (1944), the Court construed a municipal penal ordinance, and the question was what constituted a 'public place.' The Court, in h......
-
Richmond v. City of Corinth
...v. State, 660 So.2d 220 (Miss.1995); Toliver v. State, 600 So.2d 186 (Miss.1992). ¶ 19. Further, this Court in Nelson v. City of Natchez, 197 Miss. 26, 19 So.2d 747 (1944), dealt with a city ordinance prohibiting profanity in a public place. The Court defined a "public place" in that instan......