State v. Langley
| Decision Date | 05 May 1942 |
| Citation | 26 A.2d 368 |
| Parties | STATE v. LANGLEY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Lorimer, Judge.
James M. Langley was charged with violating speed limit and motion to quash information was denied subject to exception.A question was transferred in advance of further proceedings.
Information quashed.
Information, for a violation of Laws 1937, c. 125, § 1, alleging that the defendant"unlawfully did operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway, to wit, Pleasant Street" in Concord, "in a district in which the speed limit was twenty-five miles an hour, said speed limit having been duly determined by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and signs having been duly erected indicating such speed limit."The defendant's motion to quash the information was denied subject to exception.Facts agreed.
The alleged offense occurred on September 29, 1941, within an alleged zone the westerly limit of which was marked by a sign reading, "Speed 25."The defendant was driving westerly toward his home, which was situated easterly of the sigh in question.
The sign was erected on September 17, 1941, at the request of Malcolm Wilkins, director of safety for the State Motor Vehicle Department.Wilkins had been requested by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to take charge of the determination of speed limits and the location of speed-limit signs throughout the State.Having determined that twenty-five miles an hour was a reasonable and safe speed limit on that section of Pleasant Street between the thickly settled portion of the city and a point about three-eighths of a mile west of the defendant's residence, Wilkins located the sign at that point and filled out a sign-location card, which was forwarded to the State Highway Department.Employees of that department erected the sign in accordance with the location card and made a notation on the card to that effect.The card was then filed in the records of the Motor Vehicle Department.The card was never signed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, nor was Wilkins' determination ever formally approved by the Commissioner, although the Commissioner knew of the action which Wilkins had taken.
Section 1 of chapter 125 of the Laws of 1937 provides as follows:
It is also provided, Laws 1937, c. 125, § 2, that "Any speed in excess of such limit shall be prima facie evidence that such speed is not reasonable and safe but the fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than such limit shall not relieve the operator from the duty to decrease speed when a special hazard shall exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions and speed shall be decreased as may be necessary to avoid collision with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements of all persons to use due care."
This section, as amended by sections 2and3 of chapter 130 of the Laws of 1939, further provides as follows: "It shall be prima facie lawful for the driver of any vehicle to drive the same at a speed not exceeding the following but in any case when such speed is found to be unsafe it shall not be lawful:
The question, "What legal effect is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mott's Super Markets, Inc. v. Frassinelli
...120 A.2d 924; State v. Nelson, 139 Conn. 124, 127, 90 A.2d 157; Chandler v. Prince, 217 Mass. 451, 454, 105 N.E. 1076; State v. Langley, 92 N.H. 136, 138, 26 A.2d 368; Gemma v. Rotondo, 62 R.I. 293, 296, 5 A.2d 297, 122 A.L.R. 223; 9 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) § 2494; 72 C.J.S. p. 499. Unde......
-
Of Tax Comm'n v. Borofsky.
...N.H. 227, 239, 123 A. 692, 698, 31 A.L.R. 1212), and in the absence of other evidence does not compel a verdict of guilty. State v. Langley, 92 N.H. 136, 26 A.2d 368. The constituent elements that make up ‘cost to the retailer’ are peculiarly within the knowledge of the retailer as are the ......
-
State v. Pinsince
...unlawful delegation of legislative power. Conway v. New Hampshire Water Resources Board, 89 N.H. 346, 351-353, 199 A. 83; State v. Langley, 92 N.H. 136, 26 A.2d 368. See Opinion of the Justices, 96 N.H. 517, 524, 83 A.2d No more do we consider that the order to take shelter was a violation ......
-
Opinion Of The Justices.
...as in City of Buffalo v. Stevenson, 207 N.Y. 258, 263, 100 N.E. 798; Adams v. Landry, 93 N.H. 74, 75, 35 A.2d 510; State v. Langley, 92 N.H. 136, 138, 26 A.2d 368. The use of parking meters as an aid to the exercise of the power to regulate and control traffic is generally recognized. It ma......