State v. Jarvis

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
Citation95 A. 541
PartiesSTATE v. JARVIS.
Decision Date11 October 1915

Exceptions from City Court of Burlington; C. S. Palmer, Judge.

George D. Jarvis was convicted of violating a city ordinance, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before MUNSON, C. J., and WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, and TAYLOR, JJ.

Alfred L. Sherman, City Atty., of Burlington, for the State. W. A. Bullard, of Burlington, for respondent.

TAYLOR, J. The respondent was prosecuted in the city court of Burlington on a complaint charging, in substance, that on a certain day, in the city of Burlington, he did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully engage in the business of carrying persons for hire from place to place within said city, and did then and there act as a hackman within said city without being licensed therefor, in violation of a city ordinance which is set out at length in the complaint The case was heard on an agreed statement of facts, upon which the respondent was adjudged guilty and sentenced. To the judgment and sentence the respondent excepted, execution of sentence was stayed, and the cause passed to this court.

The ordinance in question reads as follows:

"Sec. 37. Persons engaged in the business of carrying for hire persons with or without baggage from place to place within the city are hackmen; nothing herein shall be construed to apply to keepers of livery stables who let horses in the ordinary course of livery business, but\ livery keepers who on any one day engage in the business of carrying passengers as aforesaid shall be subject to all the provisions relating to hackmen.

"Sec. 38. No persons shall act as a hackman unless licensed."

The respondent is a resident of the city of Burlington. With other business, he owns and conducts in said city a garage, at which be carries on an extensive automobile repair business and stores and sells automobiles and automobile supplies. He also owns several automobiles, varying in number from one to eight, kept in said garage and operated by regularly licensed chauffeurs, by means of which persons are carried for hire wherever they desire from place to place within the city of Burlington, and as well to places without the city. This part of the respondent's business is not conducted during the winter months, viz., from about December 1st to about May 1st The automobiles thus employed do not occupy hack stands on the streets of the city, but are always kept in the respondent's garage when not in actual service. Patronage is not solicited on or about the streets, but the services of the machines are obtained by going or sending to the garage and by telephone. The respondent has paid all taxes required by the state on the machines in question. The city claimed that the respondent was subject to the requirements of the city ordinances relating to hackmen, but the respondent neglected to procure the required license, and this prosecution followed.

The respondent contends that the definition in the ordinance quoted above of what constitutes a hackman is not warranted by the city charter; that the word "hackman," as used in the charter, refers to the common-law hackman; that the city council can only license such a hackman and define what he shall do; that it has no authority to say who are or who are not hackmen. This argument is based upon a misinterpretation of the charter and ordinance. The charter of the city of Burlington confers upon the city council the power "to license porters, cartmen and the owners or drivers of hackney coaches, cabs or carriages, and to regulate their fees and prescribe their duties." No. 242, Acts of 1908, § 48.

It will be observed that the word "hackman" nowhere appears in the charter. It is the owner or driver of a hackney coach, cab, or carriage whose business may be regulated by license. Webster defines the word "hackney," used as an adjective, thus: "Let out for hire; devoted to common use; * * * as hackney coaches." Bouvier says "hackney carriages" are carriages plying for hire in the streets. 1 Bouv. Law Dic. 924. This is the meaning uniformly given to the term by the courts of England. See 21 Cyc. 355, 356, and cases there cited. It follows that the authority delegated to the city council is to license the owners or drivers of coaches, cabs, and carriages that ply for hire in the streets of the city and regulate such business.

Turning to the ordinance under discussion, it, in effect, provides that no person, with an exception not now material, shall engage in the business of carrying persons for hire from place to place within the city without a license. For convenience in framing the ordinances relating to this subject the council adopted the name "hackman" to designate a person engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire from place to place within the city. When in the next section they provided that "no person shall act as a hackman unless licensed," they were not referring to the "common-law hackman," if, perchance, the term had any well-settled meaning at common law. Manifestly they referred to the person to whom they had just applied the term. The two sections, taken together, constitute the ordinance, and, when read together, there is no room for cavil. It is not a question of the authority of the city council to say who are hackmen, but rather a question whether the charter gave them authority to adopt the ordinance. [3,4] We think the ordinance is fairly within the scope of the authority delegated by the charter. It should be given a reasonable construction. The charter gives the city council full jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and their ordinances relating thereto will be supported by every reasonable intendment 2 Dill. Mun. Cor. § 591; Baltimore v. Clunet, 23 Md. 449; Whitlock v. West, 26 Conn. 406. It...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT