State v. Sweeney

• Decision Date: 07 March 1939
• Citation: 5 A.2d 41
• Parties: STATE v. SWEENEY.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

5 A.2d 41

STATE

v. SWEENEY.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

March 7, 1939.

Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Lorimer, Judge.

J. Leonard Sweeney was convicted in the municipal court of Nashua, N. H., of violating city ordinance regulating parking of vehicles, and he appeals. On transfer of question by superior court without a ruling.

Case discharged.

Appeal, from a conviction in the Municipal Court of Nashua on a complaint and warrant charging the defendant with the violation of a city ordinance which provides that at certain specified times and places "No motor vehicle or horse-drawn vehicle shall be stationed or remain for a period exceeding one hour."

In the Superior Court, trial by jury having been waived, it was found that the defendant parked his automobile at a time and in a place specified in the ordinance and that at about 2:35 P. M. a police officer made a chalk mark upon its right rear tire. At about 3 P. M. the defendant moved his automobile in order to avoid having it remain stationary in the same place for more than an hour and at about 3:10 P. M. he returned it to exactly the same location for the purpose of leaving it there for another hour. At 3:50 P. M. a friend of the defendant, at his request, drove the automobile around the business section of Nashua for about five minutes and then returned it again to the same place where it had previously been parked. It was found that the defendant entertained the belief that by adopting this procedure just before the expiration of each hour of parking he could keep his automobile on the street practically all day. At 4 P. M. the defendant's car was tagged by the police officer on the beat.

The court, Lorimer, J., transferred without ruling "the question of whether on these facts the court can find the respondent guilty of violating the parking regulations."

J. Vincent Broderick, Co. Sol., of Manchester, for the State.

Markar G. Markarian, of Nashua, for defendant.

WOODBURY, Justice.

Ordinances, like statutes, should be construed so as to effectuate their evident purpose. Young v. Bridges, 86 N.H 135, 140, 165 A. 272, and cases cited. The evident purpose of the ordinance quoted above, which is applicable to the business district of the city, is primarily to provide convenient parking facilities for those who wish to make short visits to stores and business offices. Its purpose is to promote the convenience of persons who wish to make short calls at...