State v. Jacob Aaron
| Citation | 97 A. 659,90 Vt. 183 |
| Parties | STATE v. JACOB AARON |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1916 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
February Term, 1916.
COMPLAINT for carelessly operating an automobile, in violation of P. S. 4091. Heard in the City Court of the City of Barre, Scott, Judge, on respondent's special demurrer to the complaint. Demurrer overruled and complaint adjudged sufficient to which respondent excepted. Case passed to the Supreme Court before trial on the merits. The opinion states the case.
Reversed and remanded.
W A. Lord and J. Ward Carver for the respondent.
Fred E. Gleason, State's Attorney, for the State.
Present MUNSON, C. J., WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, AND TAYLOR, JJ.
The respondent was arraigned in the city court of Barre on a grand juror's complaint charging him with carelessly operating an automobile on a public highway in that city. He demurred to the complaint and brings the case here before trial on an exception to the action of the court in overruling his demurrer.
P.S. 4091, No. 101, Acts of 1908, provides that no automobile or motor vehicle shall be run on a public way or private way laid out under the authority of statute, in a careless or negligent manner. P. S. 4092 penalizes a violation of this provision. The complaint charges that the respondent, on a day specified, at Barre, did operate an automobile upon a public highway laid out by authority of statute, in a careless and negligent manner, contrary to the statute, etc.
The complaint is insufficient in two respects: (1) It does not sufficiently point out the place where the alleged offence was committed; and (2) it does not sufficiently show wherein the respondent's operation of the car was careless.
(1) It is ordinarily sufficient to allege the place where an offence is said to have been committed with particularity enough to show jurisdiction over it. But where an act is criminal only when done at a particular place, the place becomes a matter of essential description and must be alleged with reasonable certainty. State v. Cotton, 24 N.H. 143. The case in hand is of this class; operating an automobile carelessly is a crime only when it is done on a way laid out by statutory authority. The city of Barre contains many highways, some of which, no doubt, were made such by dedication, and not by statutory establishment. It may be that by a proper interpretation of the statute these are not covered; in which case, the respondent would be entitled to know what particular street the complaint refers to, so that he may intelligently investigate the question of its origin at any rate, the particular place is material and should have been alleged. State v. Pratt, 54 Vt. 484. An indictment under a statute penalizing playing cards in a public place is fatally defective if it fails...
To continue reading
Request your trial