State v. Claiborne

• Decision Date: 17 January 1919
• Docket Number: 32569
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Appellant, v. C. F. CLAIBORNE, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

170 N.W. 417

185 Iowa 170

STATE OF IOWA, Appellant, v. C. F. CLAIBORNE, Appellee

No. 32569

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 17, 1919

Appeal from Polk District Court.--LAWRENCE DE GRAFF, Judge.

DEFENDANT was informed against and accused of the crime of operating a motor vehicle without proper lights. He appealed to the district court. The trial court found defendant not guilty and the State appeals.

Affirmed.

H. M Havner, Attorney General, and Ward C. Henry, County Attorney for appellant.

Stipp, Perry, Bannister & Starzinger, for appellee.

PRESTON, J. LADD, C. J., EVANS and STEVENS, JJ., concur.

OPINION

PRESTON, J.

The information charges, substantially, that defendant operated upon the streets of Des Moines, at a time more than one hour after sunset, a motor vehicle, with a lighting device thereon of over four candle power, equipped with a reflector so arranged that the directly reflected and undiffused beam of light therefrom, when measured 75 feet ahead of the light, did not rise above 42 inches from the level surface on which the vehicle was standing and being operated, under all conditions of load.

The defendant made the following admission of record:

"Mr. Bannister: This cause coming on for trial, the defendant admits that, on the date and at the time and place in question, he was operating an automobile in the city of Des Moines, Iowa, with the headlight lighted, and so adjusted and arranged that the direct and undiffused beam or ray of light therefrom, when measured 75 feet ahead of the machine, was less than 42 inches above the ground on the level on which the machine was standing and being operated; and that the said headlight was of more than four candle power."

And upon said admission, the State rested. The defendant introduced witnesses, who testified, substantially, to large experience in driving motor cars and in using headlights of different cars; that most headlights have been equipped with reflectors, so as to concentrate the light in one beam, so it will light up one spot, the light being in front of or in a concave reflector; that, where there is a plain glass in front of the light, the ray that comes from the light is called undiffused, or a direct beam; that, if the light is so arranged that it shoots up more than 42 inches from the ground, it will, in nearly every case, blind one who is approaching on the road so that he cannot see the road ahead; if this direct beam of light is down below 42 inches, it would not have as bad an effect on the driver approaching; if it is directed down, it strikes the ground, and does not reflect in one's eyes; the center of headlights on automobiles run from 30 to 36 inches from the ground; there are prism lights made which tend to diffuse the beams from a headlight; the larger portion of them, when properly installed, diffuse the light so that it is possible to drive against them without bothering one meeting them, to any great extent; this is called a light that has a diffused ray, or a diffused beam. There are corrugated lights in a number of different forms, some colored and frosted, and a glass prism crosses the rays of light,--or breaks them up, as some of the witnesses put it; and, as they cover a large area, rather than a direct beam in front of you, they will not extend or penetrate so far ahead, but do not reach one and blind him in meeting it. There are some lenses on the market made so that, when a light is deflected down, so that it is only 42 inches from the ground, 75 feet ahead of the machine it will throw a light as far down the road as an undeflected beam; quite a number of cars are equipped with dimmers,--that is, two lights in the reflector, a small light and a large one. A headlight of from 16 to 40 candle power, with an ordinary reflector and globe, so arranged as to strike the road a long way ahead, if more than 42 inches above the ground, will practically blind a driver approaching; it is very annoying, and might be very dangerous.

One of the experts was asked:

"Q. Now, what would you say, as a man of experience in the operating and handling of automobiles, of the effect of a statute which apparently required all automobile drivers to shoot a direct ray of light up above 42 inches from the ground? A. I think it would be very dangerous. Q. In your opinion, would anyone who was drafting a statute for the purpose of benefiting the road laws, or making a proper adjustment and operation of automobile lights at night, make or enact such a provision into the law that the lights and direct rays of light should be shot up above 42 inches,--would there be any object and reason for passing such a rule? A. No, sir. Q. State whether or not that is the very evil which is complained of. A. It is. Q. State whether or not that is the very evil which any remedial statute would be calculated to remedy. A. I think so. More than 42 inches is calculated to strike the eyes of a driver approaching in a car; that is about the average height of a driver's eyes, 3 feet, 6 inches."

Defendant introduced the original House File No. 131 (37 G. A.), as follows:

"House File 131. A bill for an act to amend Section fifteen hundred seventy-one-m-seventeen, Supplement to the Code, 1913.

"Section 1. That Section fifteen hundred seventy-one-m-seventeen, Supplement to the Code, 1913, be and the same is hereby amended by striking out the period at the end of said section, and substituting therefore the following:

"'Provided, however, that it shall be unlawful for any person operating a motor vehicle upon the public highway in this state to use any lighting device of over four candle power, equipped with a reflector, unless the same shall be so designed, deflected or arranged that (no part of the beam of the reflected) light, when measured seventy-five (75) feet or more ahead of the light shall raise above forty-two (42) inches from the level surface on which the vehicle stands under all conditions of load.'"

Also the Senate Amendment thereto, as follows:

"I move to amend H. F. No. 131 by striking out all after the word 'that' in line eleven, down to and including the word 'reflected' in said line of Section one, and inserting the words 'the directly reflected and undiffused beam of such.'"

The statute as it stands (Ch. 148, Acts of the Thirty-seventh General Assembly), and for a violation of which the defendant is accused, reads:

"That section fifteen hundred seventy-one-m-seventeen, Supplement to the Code, 1913, be and the same is hereby amended by striking out the period (.) at the end of said section, and substituting therefor the following:

"; provided, however, that it shall be unlawful for any person operating a motor vehicle upon the public highway in this state to use any lighting device of over four candle power, equipped with a reflector, unless the same shall be so designed, deflected or arranged that the directly reflected and undiffused beam of such light, when measured seventy-five feet or more ahead of the light shall arise above forty-two inches from the level surface on which the vehicle stands under all conditions of load. Spot lights shall not be used so as to throw direct rays in the face of an approaching vehicle."

The trial court construed this statute so as to read into it the word "not," so that it would read: "The light shall not rise above forty-two inches," etc.

It is contended by the State that it is not admissible to speculate on what a statute might mean, beyond the import of the words used, citing Gardner v. Collins, 2 Peters (U.S.) 58, 92 (7 L.Ed. 347), from which they quote this:

"What the legislative intention was, can be derived only from the words they have used; and we cannot speculate beyond the reasonable import of these words. The spirit of the act must be extracted from the words of the act, and not from conjectures aliunde."

They say, too, that the justice and policy of statutes enacted by the legislative department of the government are not matters for the consideration of the courts of the state. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa 312, 344, 48 N.W. 98, from which they quote as follows:

"Much is said in argument attacking the justice and policy of the statutes. With these things we have nothing to do. They are for the consideration of the legislative department of the government alone."

They cite, also, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Finn, 195 F. 685, 688; from which they quote:

"'It is not for the court to inquire or determine whether a state of facts existed calling for the enactment of the legislation in question. That is for the exclusive consideration of the legislature. If, under any possible state of facts, the act would be constitutional and valid, the court is bound to presume that such condition existed.'"

The State says that the literal construction of a statute may defeat the objects of the act, and...