Spence v. Cole
Citation | 137 F.2d 71 |
Decision Date | 14 July 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 5082.,5082. |
Parties | SPENCE, Chief of Police, v. COLE et al. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
John H. Hall, of Elizabeth City, N.C. (J. W. Jennette, of Elizabeth City, N.C., (on the brief), for appellant.
Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellees.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decree enjoining the Chief of Police of Elizabeth City, N. C., from arresting or interfering with plaintiffs in preaching the Gospel or in distributing booklets, tracts and pamphlets used by them for the purpose of stimulating private Bible study. Plaintiffs are members of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses. They were threatened with prosecution by defendant for violating an ordinance of Elizabeth City which declared it to be a nuisance for solicitors, peddlers, hawkers, itinerant merchants or transient vendors of merchandise to go in or upon private residences or premises, without the request or invitation of the owners or occupants, for the purpose of soliciting orders for goods, wares and merchandise or peddling, hawking or disposing of same. The evidence showed that plaintiffs had been going from house to house in the city distributing the pamphlets of their sect and seeking to collect a small sum of money therefor. The judge below held that their activities did not constitute a violation of the ordinance, but that defendant was attempting to enforce it against them in such way as to violate their constitutional rights. The injunction granted did not enjoin the prosecution of criminal cases already pending in which plaintiffs were being prosecuted for violation of the ordinance, but restrained future prosecutions.
We may assume that the enforcement of the ordinance against plaintiffs under the circumstances here disclosed would constitute a violation of their constitutional rights. Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. ___. But it does not follow that plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction granted them below. There was no showing of such irreparable injury as would warrant a court of equity in restraining criminal prosecutions; and there is no reason to think that the state courts would not protect the constitutional rights of plaintiffs upon such prosecutions being instituted. The case is clearly one for the application of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 63 S.Ct. 877, 881, 87 L.Ed. ___, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Edmisten v. Tucker
...judgment adjudicating its constitutionality, a matter which can be authoritatively settled in the criminal action. Spence v. Cole, 137 F.2d 71 (4th Cir.1943). See Chadwick v. Salter, 254 N.C. 389, 119 S.E.2d 158; 26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 33 (1956). "The rationale seems to be that i......
-
Sellers v. Johnson, Civ. No. 746.
...interfere with the enforcement of criminal laws. American Fed. of Labor v. Watson; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, both supra; Spence v. Cole, 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 71; Whisler v. City of West Plains, 8 Cir., 137 F.2d 938. Even in cases where there is a prosecution under an invalid ordinance. Doug......
- Japan Gas Lighter Association v. Ronson Corp.
-
Enka BV of Arnhem, Holland v. EI DU PONT, ETC., Civ. A. No. 80-358
... ... Mosher, Charles A. Wendel, Roger W. Parkhurst and Thomas W. Cole, Stevens, Davis, Miller & Mosher, Arlington, Va., of counsel ... James M. Tunnell, Jr., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, ... ...