People v. King, 125.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 125.,125. |
| Citation | 236 Mich. 405,210 N.W. 235 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KING et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Circuit Court, Gratiot County; Edward J. Moinet, Judge.
Lewis King and two others were convicted of violation of Comp. Laws 1915, § 14994, and bring exceptions before sentence. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.George G. Hunter and Kelly S. Searl, both of St. Johns, for appellants.
Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., O. L. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Romaine Clark, Pros. Atty., of Ithaca, for the People.
The defendants are traveling evangelists. They were convicted of resisting the execution of an ordinance and the orders of the mayor of Alma, Mich.
The people's testimony tends to show that the defendants began holding religious meetings on July 13, 1925, in Wright Park, a city park in Alma, Mich. The park adjoins the Michigan Old People's Masonic Home and Hospital. No formal permission was given by the city, but the meetings continued without objection until complaints came in of excessive noise and misuse of the park. The city commission then decided to deny the use of the park to the defendants after Saturday, July 18, 1925, and left the matter to the mayor, the city manager, and the chief of police, who caused the defendants to be notified that the meetings must be discontinued after Saturday night. Notwithstanding this notice, the defendants announced that meetings would be held as usual. The defendant King spoke in defiance of the city authorities, told the people that they were not living in Rome, that the park belonged to them, and that the mayor had no right to deny to them the use of it. By order of the mayor, the park was closed on Sunday, July 19, 1925. The gates were roped off, and the chief of police, with several regular policemen and special officers, was stationed at the park to prevent its use by the defendants. Before the time announced for the meeting, the mayor went to the park and talked to the defendants. He told them that they could not use the park. Defendant King insisted that the mayor was wrong, and said that, notwithstanding his order, they would hold their meetings. Two of the defendants sought places of entrance not guarded by the police, and entered the park. They were ejected. They then addressed the people who had congregated in large numbers on the outside, and advised them to break down the fence and go into the park. The crowd followed this advice, and broke over into the park in spite of the efforts of the officers to restrain them. The meeting was held according to schedule. This prosecution followed.
The defendants denied many of the claims of the people, though there is little dispute as to the material facts. They were convicted, and have brought the case to this court on exceptions before sentence.
The errors assigned relate to the admission of evidence, to the refusal to give certain requests, and to the charge as given.
The prosecution was brought under section 14994, C. L. 1915, which provides:
‘If any person shall knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist, or oppose any sheriff, coroner, township treasurer, constable, or other officer or person duly authorized, in serving, or attempting to serve or execute any process, rule, or order, made or issued by lawful authority, or shall resist any officer in the execution of any ordinance, by-law, or any rule, order, or resolution made, issued, or passed by the common council of any city, board of trustees, or common council or village council of any incorporated village, or township board of any township, or shall assault, beat, or wound any sheriff, coroner, township treasurer, constable, or other officer duly authorized, while serving, or attempting to serve or execute any such process, rule, or order, or for having served, or attempted to serve or execute the same, or shall so obstruct, resist, oppose, assault, beat, or wound any of the above-named officers, or any other person or persons authorized by law to maintain and preserve the peace, in their lawful acts, attempts and efforts to maintain, preserve and keep the peace, every person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished. * * *’
The first question discussed in defendants' brief is presented by ten requests to charge, and, in substance, is that the court should have held as a matter of law that there was no question for the jury, and should have directed a verdict of not guilty. In other words, it is the defendants' claim that there was no offense committed under the statute; that the order of the mayor was not such an order as is contemplated by the statute; that the officers were not engaged in the execution of an ordinance; and that, considering the testimony most favorable to the people's case, the defendants were guilty of nothing more than a violation of an ordinance.
The ordinance in question in known as Ordinance No. 67, and is entitled: ‘An ordinance to regulate the use of the public parks of the city of Alma, Michigan.’ The applicable part reads as follows:
‘No person shall deliver any oration, address, speech, sermon or lecture therein unless he shall have first received permission from the common council of the city of Alma, or the mayor or other lawful authority so to do; nor shall any public meeting be held therein unless leave is first obtained.’
The statute under which this prosecution is brought makes it an offense for any person to ‘resist any officer in the execution of an ordinance,’ etc.
Counsel for the defendants insist that at the time when the offense is alleged to have been committed the officers were not engaged in the execution of an ordinance. They base this contention on a distinction which they seek to draw between the execution of an ordinance and an effort to prevent its breach.
To execute an ordinance within the meaning of the statute is to carry it into effect, to enforce its commands. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bacon, In re
...v. McDonald (1879) 8 Biss. 439, 26 Fed.Cas. 1074, Fed.Cas.No.15,667; Reed v. State, 103 Ark. 391, 147 S.W. 76; People v. King, 236 Mich. 405, 210 N.W. 235, 48 A.L.R. 742; Despard v. Wilcox (1910) 102 L.T.N.S. (Eng.) 103. This rule is particularly applicable under statutes containing the wor......
-
People v. Philabaun, Docket No. 114405.
...can be relevant facts in a prosecution under this statute, but none is a necessary element.19 We said as much in People v. King, 236 Mich. 405, 411-412, 210 N.W. 235 (1926): [K]nowing they had been forbidden to use the park, the defendants went there with a fixed determination to hold the m......
-
People v. Philabaun
...that his conduct did not rise to the level of resisting or obstructing as required by M.C.L. § 750.479; MSA 28.747. In People v. King, 236 Mich. 405, 210 N.W. 235 (1926), the defendants through verbal acts alone, incited a crowd of people to overrun police officers and gain illegal entrance......
-
People v. Kelley
...69. However, actual physical interference is not required to be proved to sustain a conviction under the statute. People v. King, 236 Mich. 405, 210 N.W. 235 (1926). Defendant also presents alternative arguments on his second appellate issue, which broadly asserts that the case was not prop......