State v. Rice, No. 29317

Docket NºNo. 29317
Citation235 Ind. 423, 134 N.E.2d 219
Case DateMay 11, 1956
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 219

134 N.E.2d 219
235 Ind. 423
STATE of Indiana, Appellant,
v.
Benjamin Victor RICE, Appellee.
No. 29317.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 11, 1956.

[235 Ind. 424]

Page 220

Patrick Brennan, Pros. Atty., Isadore D. Rosenfeld, Deputy Pros. Atty., South Bend, Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellant.

Joseph T. Helling, Crumpacker, May, Beamer, Levy & Searer, South Bend, for appellee.

EMMERT, Judge.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether § 4-2402, Burns' 1946 Replacement, Acts 1905, ch. 129, § 216, p. 219; 1921, ch. 70, § 1, p. 153; 1939, ch. 7, § 1, p. 12, deprives a Justice of the Peace of Center Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana, of jurisdiction of a violation of a highway traffic misdemeanor committed outside of the corporate limits of South Ben. The trial court held that it did, and the state appeals.

South Bend is a city of the second class, and no magistrate courts have been created for St. Joseph County. The material part of the statute concerning the jurisdiction of city courts is as follows:

'He shall have and exercise, within the county in which such city is located, the powers and jurisdiction now or hereafter conferred upon justices of the peace in all cases of crimes and misdemeanors, except as otherwise herein provided. He shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all violations of the ordinances of such city. In all cities of the first and second and third class he shall have exclusive jurisdiction of the trial of all misdemeanors constituting violation of highway traffic [235 Ind. 425] ordinances of such city, and of violations of the highway traffic laws of the state of Indiana; * * *.' (Italics supplied.) Section 4-2402, Burns' 1946 Replacement.

The appellee would have us construe the exclusive jurisdiction of the city court as if the clause concerning highway traffic laws of the State of Indiana had added to it the words 'within the county in which such city is located.' Admittedly, this clause as it stands is ambiguous, but, as was stated by this court in State ex rel. 1625 East Washington Realty Co. v. Markey, 1937, 212 Ind. 59, 63, 7 N.E.2d 989, 991, 'It is our duty, however, to construe the act and determine, if we can, its meaning. As said in the case of State ex inf. Crow v. [West Side] Street Ry. Co., 1898, 146 Mo. 155 , 47 S.W. 959, 961: 'A statute cannot be held void for uncertainty, if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. Mere difficulty in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Berns Const. Co., Inc. v. Miller, No. 1-1085A245
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 16, 1986
    ...it so as not to permit absurdity, hardship or injustice, but to favor public convenience and public interest. State v. Rice (1956), 235 Ind. 423, 134 N.E.2d There is no indication in IND. CODE 34-4-20-2 of a legislative intent to repeal IND. CODE 34-1-2-2(1) as it applies to suits for perso......
  • Sightes v. Barker, No. 46A05-9702-JV-52
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 15, 1997
    ...Thus, we must endeavor to construe the Act so as not to render it "obnoxious to constitutional prohibitions." Id. (quoting State v. Rice, 235 Ind. 423, 425, 134 N.E.2d 219, 221 (1956)). When drafting the Act, the legislature had to balance two competing interests: the rights of parents to r......
  • Loza v. State, No. 3-573A55
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 23, 1974
    ...material fact. Statutes should be construed so as to prevent absurdity and hardship, and favor public convenience. State v. Rice (1956), 235 Ind. 423, 134 N.E.2d 219. In the statute before us, this can only be done by recognizing the statute for what its history indicates it to be, simply a......
  • Bailey v. Menzie, No. 20A03-8806-CV-195
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 24, 1989
    ...endeavor to construe Acts 1987, P.L. 293 Sec. 7 so as not to render it "obnoxious to constitutional prohibitions." State v. Rice (1956), 235 Ind. 423, 134 N.E.2d 219. While M.T.A. dealt with the issue of when the Legislature would be permitted to retroactively repeal legislation, those same......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Berns Const. Co., Inc. v. Miller, No. 1-1085A245
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 16, 1986
    ...it so as not to permit absurdity, hardship or injustice, but to favor public convenience and public interest. State v. Rice (1956), 235 Ind. 423, 134 N.E.2d There is no indication in IND. CODE 34-4-20-2 of a legislative intent to repeal IND. CODE 34-1-2-2(1) as it applies to suits for perso......
  • Sightes v. Barker, No. 46A05-9702-JV-52
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 15, 1997
    ...Thus, we must endeavor to construe the Act so as not to render it "obnoxious to constitutional prohibitions." Id. (quoting State v. Rice, 235 Ind. 423, 425, 134 N.E.2d 219, 221 (1956)). When drafting the Act, the legislature had to balance two competing interests: the rights of parents to r......
  • Loza v. State, No. 3-573A55
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 23, 1974
    ...material fact. Statutes should be construed so as to prevent absurdity and hardship, and favor public convenience. State v. Rice (1956), 235 Ind. 423, 134 N.E.2d 219. In the statute before us, this can only be done by recognizing the statute for what its history indicates it to be, simply a......
  • Bailey v. Menzie, No. 20A03-8806-CV-195
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 24, 1989
    ...endeavor to construe Acts 1987, P.L. 293 Sec. 7 so as not to render it "obnoxious to constitutional prohibitions." State v. Rice (1956), 235 Ind. 423, 134 N.E.2d 219. While M.T.A. dealt with the issue of when the Legislature would be permitted to retroactively repeal legislation, those same......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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