Ragsdale v. City Of Danville
| Citation | 82 S.E. 77,116 Va. 484 |
| Parties | RAGSDALE. v. CITY OF DANVILLE. |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1914 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Error to Corporation Court of Danville. The mayor of the city of Danville imposed a fine on John N. Ragsdale, who appealed to the corporation court. The appeal was dismissed, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Scott & Buchanan, of Richmond, B. H. Custer, of Danville, and John L. Ingram, of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.
E. W. Brown, of Danville, for defendant in error.
The mayor of the city of Danville imposed a fine of $10 upon the plaintiff in error, John N. Ragsdale, for the violation of a city ordinance for the prevention of the spread of smallpox, in refusing to be vaccinated. To an order of the corporation court of the city dismissing an appeal from that judgment, this writ of error was granted. After the order of dismissal, the plaintiff in error, still refusing to pay the fine, was committed by order of the mayor to the custody of the keeper of the city jail, there safely to be kept until discharged by due course of law.
In dismissing the appeal from the judgment of the mayor, the corporation court was controlled by section 7 of chapter 5 of the city charter, which declares that:
"An appeal may be taken from the judgment of the mayor in imposing penalties for infraction of the city ordinances to the corporation court of the city, except in cases where the penalty imposed is a fine not exceeding ten dollars, in which case it shall be final."
We do not understand that counsel questions the power of the commonwealth to authorize municipal corporations, in the exercise of the police power, to pass, and enforce by pecuniary forfeiture, compulsory vaccination ordinances. An instructive discussion of the subject will be found in the opinion of the late Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, in Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct 358, 49 L. Ed. 643 (annotated in 3 Ann. Cas. 765).
The precise contention upon this writ of error is that the offense with which the plaintiff in error is charged is a criminal offense within the meaning of section 8, art. 1, of the Constitution of Virginia (Code 1904, p. ccix); consequently, that he had a right of appeal from the judgment of the mayor to the corporation court of the city of Danville, and therefore that the provision of section 7, chapter 5, of the city charter, limiting that right to cases where the forfeiture is in excess of $10, is unconstitutional.
Notwithstanding the provision of Magna Charta safeguarding the right of jury trial in cases involving life and liberty, and similar provisions in the Constitution of the United States and of the several states of the Union, it is matter of common knowledge that the general course of legislation in both countries has been for centuries to confer summary jurisdiction upon mayors and police justices of cities and towns and justices of the peace of counties for the trial of mi-nor offenses. Such offenses are not regarded essentially as crimes and misdemeanors within the purview of the constitutional guaranties referred to. 24 Cyc. 145; 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (5th Ed.) §§ 637, 749, 750; 3 McQuillan on Mun. Corp. §§ 1059-1065, inclusive.
In England the line of demarcation "is between offenses known as 'pleas of the crown, ' where the trial must be by jury, and petty offenses, punishable by fine or amerciament in the inferior jurisdictions: " 3 Dillon, § 750. This distinction has been fully recognized and observed by the decisions of this court.
Thus, in Ex parte Marx, 86 Va. 40, 9 S. E. 475, it was held that the constitutional right of trial by jury did not apply to a proceeding to impose the forfeiture prescribed by section 3799 of the Code for violation of the Sabbath. That ruling was sustained by the court as at present constituted in Wells v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 834, 57 S. E. 588.
On the other hand, in the case of Mary Miller v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 618, 14 S. E. 161, 342, 979, 15 L. R. A. 441, the plaintiff in error was tried upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace for keeping a house of ill fame, and found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine and also to be confined in jail 6 months. Thereupon she appealed to the county court, and, before any further proceedings were had, moved to quash the warrant on the ground that the justice had no jurisdiction to try the case in the first instance; but the motion was overruled. The ease was then tried by a jury, which found her guilty, fixing the fine at $17, and adding a jail sentence of 1 month and 20 days. This judgment was affirmed by the circuit court Upon writ of error to this court, that judgment was reversed on the ground that the statute conferring concurrent jurisdiction upon justices with that of the county and corporation courts over the offense of keeping a house of ill fame was repugnant to section 10, art. 1, Constitution of Virginia (Code 1904, p. ccx), and that the statute giving in such case the right of appeal and trial by jury did not relieve the repugnancy. It will be observed that the offense for which this woman was prosecuted was a public crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. Code, § 3790.
It is of interest to note that that case was overruled in Brown v. Epps, 91 Va. 726, 21 S. E. 119, 27 L. R. A. 676, where the court held that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruikshank v. Duffield
...N.Y., 75; Katz v. Eldredge, 97 N.J.L. 123, 117 A. 841; State v. Loden, 117 Md. 373, 83 A. 564, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 193; Ragsdale v. City of Danville, 116 Va. 484, 82 S.E. 77. The question as to what constitutes such a clogging of the right of appeal from a justice, in such cases, has given cou......
-
Gaskill v. Com.
...effect, the holding in Miller was overruled. See Bowen v. Commonwealth, 132 Va. 598, 601, 111 S.E. 131, 132; Ragsdale v. City of Danville, 116 Va. 484, 487, 488, 82 S.E. 77, 78. At the time of the Revolution justices of the peace of the several colonies exercised summary jurisdiction over m......
-
Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist. Commission v. Smith
...be no doubt that the State may delegate to municipalities the power to provide for the preservation of the public health, Ragsdale v. Danville, 116 Va. 484, 82 S.E. 77, and the sanitation district under discussion was created to cope with a health problem involving a vast area covering citi......
-
Newberry v. Com.
...at the time of the adoption of our Bill of Rights. We so held in Ex parte Marx, 86 Va. 40, 48, 9 S.E. 475, and again in Ragsdale v. Danville, 116 Va. 484, 488, 82 S.E. 77. The disagreement between counsel for the respective parties is in their concept of the rights of an accused at common l......