State v. Aldrich

• Decision Date: 27 July 1900
• Citation: 47 A. 602,70 N.H. 391
• Parties: STATE v. ALDRICH.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

47 A. 602

70 N.H. 391

STATE

v. ALDRICH.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsboro.

July 27, 1900.

Exceptions from Hillsboro county.

Ezra B. Aldrich was charged with riding a bicycle on the sidewalk in violation of Laws 1897, c. 93, § 1, forbidding bicycle riding on sidewalks by persons over 12 years old. He moved to quash the complaint on the ground that the statute conflicts with the state constitution and the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution. Motion was denied, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

James P. Tuttle, for the State.

David W. Perkins, for defendant.

YOUNG, J. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States confers no rights upon the defendant which he does not possess as a citizen of this state, for our constitution secures to every person within its jurisdiction all the rights guarantied to citizens of the United States by that amendment. State v. Pennoyer, 65 N. H. 113, 18 Atl. 878, 5 L. R. A. 709. No person has an absolute right to use for any purpose land acquired for a highway; but, as the state holds land acquired for the purpose of a highway in trust for the benefit of the public, so its right to legislate in regard to the use of highways is subject to the same limitations as its right to legislate in respect of other public matters, and a statute regulating the public right of travel, to be constitutional, must apply alike to all persons, and should be reasonable. State v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 69 N. H. 35, 40, 38 Atl. 736. The fact that every one has an equal right to use the highways does not mean that any person can use all parts of them for all known modes of travel; for the state may lawfully appro priate public property for a particular use, or for the use of a class of its citizens, as land for a public school, or the sidewalks for a class of travelers. When any person may make the same use of a highway as every other person of the same age, sex, and condition, employing the same mode of travel, it is an equal law. State v. Griffin, 69 N H. 1, 29, 39 Atl. 260. So this statute, which appropriates a part of the highway to the use of pedestrians and children, is not open to the objection that it deprives the defendant of the equal protection of the law; for he has the same right to use any highway in this state that any other person of the same age, using the same mode of travel, has. A statute, to be objectionable as class legislation, must deny to some privileges which it permits...