Racine v. Dist. Court of Tenth Judicial Dist.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1916
• Docket Number: No. 260.,260.
• Citation: 98 A. 97
• Parties: RACINE v. DISTRICT COURT OF TENTH JUDICIAL DIST. et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

98 A. 97

RACINE

v. DISTRICT COURT OF TENTH JUDICIAL DIST. et al.

No. 260.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 8, 1916.

Petition for a writ of prohibition by Wilfred J. Racine against the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District and others. Petition denied and dismissed, and restraining order vacated.

Clarence N. Woolley, of Pawtucket, for petitioner. E. W. Blodgett, of Pawtucket, for respondents.

SWEETLAND, J. This is a petition for a writ of prohibition, praying that this court issue its writ prohibiting the district court of the Tenth judicial district from taking any further proceedings upon a criminal complaint against the petitioner now pending in said court, in which complaint the petitioner is charged with the violation of a certain ordinance of the city of Pawtucket.

The petition also includes the prayer that the mayor of Pawtucket and the chief of police of that city be restrained from the direct or indirect enforcement of said ordinance. The office of a writ of prohibition is to restrain inferior tribunals from the exercise of judicial acts, and not to prohibit the action of ministerial officers. In no event should the writ issue "restraining and enjoining" the mayor and the chief of police of Pawtucket "from the direct or indirect enforcement of each and every provision of said ordinance."

The essential allegations of the complaint against the petitioner now pending in the district court of the Tenth judicial district are as follows: That on the 14th day of June, 1916, the respondent, who is the petitioner here, "did engage in the business of transporting in the city of Pawtucket passengers for hire by means of a motor vehicle, not running on tracks or rails, and operated for the purpose of street transportation similar to that ordinarily afforded by street railways by accepting and discharging passengers along the route traversed by said vehicle, without first obtaining from the city clerk of said city a special annual license for such motor bus." Said complaint clearly seeks to charge the petitioner with a violation of the provisions of section 1, c. 139, of the Ordinances of the City of Pawtucket, approved February 25, 1916. Said section is as follows:

"Section 1. On and after the first day of May, A. D. 1916, no person shall engage in the business of transporting in the city of Pawtucket passengers for hire by means of any motor vehicle not running on tracks or rails, and operated for the purpose of affording a means of street transportation similar to that ordinarily afforded by street railways by accepting and discharging passengers along the route traversed by such vehicle, without first obtaining from the city clerk of said city a special annual license for each vehicle to be employed by such person in said business, and unless such license for such vehicle is in force. Such vehicle so employed in said business is termed a motor bus, and is not deemed a hackney carriage, but is a vehicle subject to all street traffic regulations so far as applicable and consistent herewith."

In adopting said ordinance, the city council of Pawtucket undoubtedly considered that they were acting in conformity with the authority given by section 1, c. 1263, of the Public Laws, approved April 24, 1915, which section is as follows:

"Section 1. The city or representative council of each city and the town council of each town by ordinance may provide that no person shall engage in the business of transporting in such city or town passengers for hire by means of any motor vehicle, not running on tracks or rails, and operated for the purpose of affording a means of street transportation similar to that ordinarily afforded by street railways by accepting and discharging passengers along the route traversed by such vehicle, without first obtaining a special annual license for each such vehicle to be employed by such person in said business from the board of aldermen of such city having such board, otherwise from the city council thereof, or from the town council of such town, in which said business is to he conducted or from such officer, board or commission therein as the city council, representative council or town council thereof may prescribe. Such a vehicle so employed is hereby termed a motor bus, and shall not he deemed a hackney carriage, but shall be a vehicle subject to all street traffic regulations in any city or town in which it is operated so far as applicable and consistent herewith."

The petitioner contends that said ordinance is invalid. He urges that, in accordance with said section 1 of the Public Laws in a city having a board of aldermen, the power to grant the licenses referred to can only be conferred by...