State v. Swagerty
Decision Date | 14 May 1907 |
Parties | STATE v. SWAGERTY. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; John W. McElhinney, Judge.
J. L. Swagerty was convicted in the justice court, and on appeal in the district court, of violating the state law regulating the speed of automobiles, and appeals. Affirmed.
R. H. Stevens and Kehr & Tittman, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.
On the 29th day of October, 1905, there was filed by the prosecuting attorney of St. Louis county, before R. F. Stevens, a justice of the peace of said county, an information charging that said defendant, J. L. Swagerty, did willfully and unlawfully, at said county, on said 29th day of October, 1905, operate and run a certain automobile, propelled by steam, gasoline, electricity, or other motive power, at a greater rate of speed than 9 miles per hour, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. Thereafter, on November 16, 1905, said justice heard said cause, and found the defendant guilty, and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100 and costs. Defendant appealed from this judgment to the circuit court of St. Louis county, where, on the 23d day of May, 1906, the cause was again tried by the court, a jury being waived, and the defendant again convicted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and costs. In due time defendant filed motions for a new trial and in arrest, which were overruled, and defendant appealed to this court.
The evidence showed very conclusively that on Sunday, the 29th day of October, 1905, the defendant, on the Clayton Road, one of the public highways of St. Louis county, operated an automobile at a speed of 20 miles per hour, and that the automobile was propelled by gasoline. The state asked for no declarations of law. The defendant asked the court to declare the law to be that the act in question was unconstitutional and void, which the court refused to do, and the defendant duly excepted.
This prosecution is based upon the act of 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 162), entitled "An act regulating the operation and speed of automobiles on the public streets, roads and highways of this state, fixing the amount of license, and prescribing a penalty for violating same," approved March 23, 1903. It is as follows:
Automobiles, operated and propelled in a manner not incompatible with the safety of the traveling public, have equal rights with other vehicles upon the public highway, subject to such rules and regulations as are prescribed by law. While it is conceded by defendant that the right to license or tax vehicles or the use of vehicles on the public streets, and to regulate such use, is acknowledged by the courts of this state (City v. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; City v. Green, 70 Mo. 562; Kansas City v. Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 450), it is insisted that an analysis of those cases shows that the legislative acts construed applied to all vehicles using the streets, and demonstrates that, when the reason of the rule on which these decisions are based is considered, the act in question is special legislation, and therefore unconstitutional and void. There can be no question but that an act which relates to persons or things as a class is a general law, while an act which refers to particular persons or things of a class is a special law. State ex rel. Lionberger v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 650. It is well settled, however, in this state, that it is only when the conditions reasonably justify the distinguishing of a class, and the law affects equally all who come within that class, that such law is not within the constitutional inhibition. State v. Loomis, 115...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hays v. Hogan
...null, and void. This contention is not well founded. This court in the case of State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517, 102 S. W. 483, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 120 Am. St. Rep. 671, 11 Ann. Cas. 725, held the act of 1903, approved March 23, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 162), which for the purposes of this ca......
-
State v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
...is valid although applicable alone to railroads. Humes v. R. R., 82 Mo. 221-223, 52 Am. Rep. 369; State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517, 102 S. W. 483, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 120 Am. St. Rep. 671; R. R. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 6 Sup. Ct. 110, 29 L. Ed. 463; R. R. v. Bristol, 151 U. S., loc. cit......
-
State v. Parker Distilling Company
... ... members of a class suffices, and this is true even though the ... business or the class is one not engaged in the selling of ... liquor and under bane of the law, but engaged in the ordinary ... business affairs, private or public. State v ... Cantwell, 179 Mo. 245; State v. Swagerty, 203 ... Mo. 517; Hume v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 231; Railroad ... v. Hume, 115 U.S. 522. The question as to exempting ... wines and liquors made from grapes grown in this State has ... been held against defendant's contention in State v ... Stucker, 58 Iowa 496; McGuire v. State, 42 Ohio ... ...
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Conran v. Duncan
... ... 693; ... State ex rel. v. Kansas City, 310 Mo. 542. The fact ... that a law is unjust in its operation does not authorize the ... court to declare it invalid unless some express provision of ... the Constitution has been violated. Court v ... Griswold, 58 Mo. 175; State v. Swagerty, 203 ... Mo. 517; Gist v. Const. Co., 224 Mo. 369; Davis v ... County, 318 Mo. 248 ... ... OPINION ... Ellison, ... [63 S.W.2d 136] ... [333 ... Mo. 677] Prohibition. Messrs. O. A. Cook and the relator, J ... V. Conran, ... ...