State v. Darazzo
| Decision Date | 04 August 1922 |
| Citation | 97 Conn. 728,118 A. 81 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. DARAZZO. |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; John R. Booth, Judge.
Louis Darazzo was convicted of operating a jitney without a license and he appeals. No error.
Information in five counts for operating a jitney upon certain highways in New Haven, the owner not having obtained a certificate from the Public Utilities Commission, brought to the criminal court of common pleas in New Haven county, where a demurrer to the information was overruled, and, upon the refusal of the accused to plead over the court, Booth, J., sentenced him to pay a fine and the costs of prosecution, and from this judgment the accused appealed.
An information based on failure to comply with Pub.Acts 1921, c 77, § 3, requiring a certificate from the Public Utilities Commission for operation of a jitney, specifying the route and service to be furnished, and that public service and convenience require its operation on such route alleging that a person named operated a jitney on a specified date on a certain described highway, the owner not having obtained a certificate from the Public Utilities Commission specifying the route over which such jitney might operate the service to be furnished, and that the public convenience and necessity require its operation, against the peace, etc is not demurrable on the ground that it is vague and indefinite.
Robert J. Woodruff, of New Haven, for appellant.
Edwin S. Pickett, Prosecuting Attorney, of New Haven, for the State.
An act concerning public service motor vehicles operating over fixed routes provides in part as follows:
" Section 1. The term ‘ public service motor vehicle’ shall include all motor vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for hire. The term ‘ jitney’ shall include any public service motor vehicle operated in whole or in part upon any street or highway in such manner as to afford a means of transportation similar to that afforded by a street railway company, by indiscriminately receiving or discharging passengers; or running on a regular route, or over any portion thereof; or between fixed termini.
Sec. 2. Every person, association or corporation owning or operating a jitney is hereby declared a common carrier and subject as such to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, and, while so operating, to such reasonable rules and regulations as said commission may prescribe with respect to routes, fares, speed, schedules, continuity of service and the convenience and safety of passengers and the public.
Public Acts of 1921, chapter 77.
Each count in the information is identical, except as to the highway or time. The first count reads:
Edwin S. Pickett, prosecuting attorney of the criminal court of common pleas of New Haven county, now here in court, information makes that at the town of New Haven, within the county of New Haven, on the 10th day of October, 1921, Louis Darazzo, of New Haven, with force and arms, did then and there operate a jitney upon a certain highway of this state, located in the town of New Haven, and known as Forbes avenue, the owner of said jitney not having obtained a certificate from the Public Utilities Commission of this state specifying the route over which such jitney might operate and the service to be furnished, and that the public convenience and necessity require its operation over such route, against the peace, of evil example, and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.
The demurrer of the defendant to the information was in the following terms:
(1) The same is insufficient in the law.
(2) Said complaint is vague and indefinite, and fails to inform the accused of the precise crime with which he is charged.
(3) The act under which said complaint is drawn fails to provide a penalty for operating a jitney without a certificate.
(4) The act under which said complaint is drawn is unconstitutional and violates the rights of the accused under the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Connecticut, in that it deprives the accused of his property without due process of law, deprives the accused of the equal protection of the laws, and confers upon a subordinate commission powers which are arbitrary, and unlawfully confers legislative and judicial powers and functions upon said commission, to wit, the Public Utilities Commission of the state of Connecticut.
We will consider first the constitutional questions. The defendant contends that the act is unconstitutional for the following reasons:
(1) Because it delegates legislative power to an administrative body.
(2) Because it confers an unregulated discretion and arbitrary power upon the commission, in that it fails to fix a standard to guide their rulings.
The legislature has the power to require a license for the transaction of any business for the purpose of regulating the conduct of it, as public interest may demand. State v. Conlon, 65 Conn. 483, 33 A. 520, 31 L.R.A. 55, 48 Am.St.Rep. 227.
" This power, however, is, in the manner of its exercise subject to the limitations embodied in the Constitution *** of the United States as well as *** of Connecticut." Id.
The use of highways by jitneys, that is, by common carriers using motor vehicles, obviously subjects the highway to special wear and tear and tends to cause obstruction of traffic and danger of accidents. Such a special use of highways especially for profit, is a recognized subject for legislative regulation. Freund, Police Power, § 172; Cotter v. Stoeckel, 97 Conn. 239, 116 A. 248; City of New Orleans v. Le...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelleher v. Minshull
...denied, 1932, 285 U.S. 538, 52 S.Ct. 311, 76 L.Ed. 931; Bank of Italy v. Johnson, 1926, 200 Cal. 1, 251 P. 784; State v. Darazzo, 1922, 97 Conn. 728, 118 A. 81; Schaake v. Dolley, 1911, 85 Kan. 598, 118 P. 80, L.R.A.,N.S., 877, Ann.Cas.1913A, 254; State ex rel. Dybdal v. State Securities Co......
-
State v. Hughes
...where the bare issue involved is the constitutionality of the very statute under which the defendant is charged; State v. Darazzo, 97 Conn. 728, 731, 118 A. 81; or where the information is so defectively framed as to be held bad upon a motion to quash or demurrer. State v. Tyrrell, 100 Conn......
-
Lyman v. Adorno
...of Bishop's Fund v. Rider, 13 Conn. 87, 103; Beach v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 344, 350, 82 A. 1030, Ann.Cas.1913B, 946; State v. Darazzo, 97 Conn. 728, 732, 118 A. 81; State v. Bassett, 100 Conn. 430, 432, 123 A. 842, 37 A.L.R. 131. ‘The Legislature is the arbiter of public policy.’ State v. G......
-
Jennings v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
...arise. The best it can do is to lay down general rules. Connecticut Co. v. City of Norwalk, 89 Conn. 528, 531, 94 A. 992; State v. Darazzo, 97 Conn. 728, 734, 118 A. 81. The challenge of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power is successfully met if the statute declares a legislati......