State v. Downes
| Decision Date | 07 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 1679.,1679. |
| Citation | 112 A. 246 |
| Parties | STATE v. DOWNES. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Allen, Judge.
Alvah H. Downes was indicted for operating an automobile in the business of transporting passengers for hire along a regular route contrary to Laws 1919, c. 86. Case transferred on agreement of the parties. Respondent discharged.
William H. Sleeper, of Exeter, for the State.
John L. Mitchell, of Portsmouth, for respondent.
PARSONS, C. J. "Every person, firm or corporation operating any motor vehicle other than a street car upon any public street or way in the business of transporting passengers for hire, and receiving and discharging passengers along a regular route over which the vehicle is operated, is hereby declared to be a common carrier and as such shall be subject to the provisions of this act so far as applicable thereto." Laws 1919, c. 86, § 1. The following sections of the chapter provide for the regulation of the business described in section one. The question presented is whether the defendant's business is within the terms of section 1, as it is conceded he is guilty if his business is so included. The business answers the description of the statute except possibly in a single particular: Passengers are received and discharged only at the termini of the route. The state claims that this is receiving and discharging passengers "along a regular route upon which the vehicle is operated," within the meaning of the statute. Such an interpretation might be placed upon the language. Construing "along" in the sense of "beside," or "at the side of," for which there is authority, the respondent may be said to receive and discharge passengers along the route, although he does so only at the termini. It is probable the passengers so mount and dismount from the vehicle. This would be so even if entrance to the vehicle is at the end instead of on the side. It is not probable the method of getting in or out of the vehicle of transportation was intended as the test by which the Legislature determined the necessity of regulation prescribed by the act. As passengers received and discharged only at the termini of a regular route in a sense are received and discharged along the route, the respondent is within the statute, if the Legislature intended to include a business so carried on.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haseltoim, County Sol. v. Interstate Stage Lines, Inc.
...the conclusions drawn from the language of the statute by this court, within the year following its enactment, in State v. Downes, 112 A. 246, 79 N. H. 505, 506, namely, that the business sought to be regulated was that usually conducted by street railways, which was distinguished by the fr......
-
Holley v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.
...Power & Light Co., 227 Wis. 83, 277 N.W. 674, 678. By, on, up to, or over, according to the subject-matter and context. State v. Downes, 79 N.H. 505, 112 A. 246; Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Miller, C.C.A. (8), 12 F.2d 41, 48. The term does not necessarily mean touching at all points; Com. v. F......
-
Mooney v. Tuckerman
...36 S. Ct. 583, 60 L. Ed. 984, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 765. In other states the courts have applied these statutes more narrowly (State v. Downes, 79 N. H. 505, 112 A. 246), often only to a business touched with a public interest, i. e., so-called public utilities (State v. Smith [Ariz.] 252 P. 101......
-
Brampton Woolen Co. v. Local Union
...and cases cited) and that the test to determine the sense of words is to inquire what they meant to those who used them. State v. Downes, 79 N.H. 505, 506, 112 A. 246; Cordopatis v. Bakalopoulos, 79 N.H. 77, 78, 104 A. 786; Lord v. Meader, 73 N.H. 185, 187, 188, 60 A. 434; Kendall v. Green,......