Territory v. Schaefer

• Decision Date: 16 October 1908
• Citation: 19 Haw. 214
• Parties: TERRITORY v. G. E. SCHAEFER.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

19 Haw. 214

TERRITORY

v.G. E. SCHAEFER.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued October 8, 1908.

Decided October 16, 1908.

APPEAL FROM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HONOLULU.

Syllabus by the Court

Ordinance 5 of the County of Oahu, relating to the registration, identification, use and operation of motor cars, is not contrary to the 5th or 14th amendments of the Constitution.

F. W. Milverton, Deputy County Attorney, for the Territory.

C. F. Clemons ( Thompson & Clemons on the brief) for defendant.

HARTWELL, C.J., WILDER AND BALLOU, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WILDER, J.

This is an appeal by defendant on points of law from a decision of the district magistrate of Honolulu finding him guilty of wilfully operating a motor car on Hotel street between Bethel and Fort streets in Honolulu “at a speed greater than was reasonable and proper having regard to the traffic and occupation of said highway at said locality,' contrary to ordinance 5 of the County of Oahu entitled An Ordinance Relating to the Registration, Identification, Use and Operation of Motor Cars.” The defendant claims that the ordinance in question is void as being contrary to the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution in illegally discriminating against him and denying him the equal protection of the laws.

The first contention is that section 2 of the ordinance discriminates illegally between residents and nonresidents who are only temporarily within the Territory. This section 2 and section 6 to which it refers in the last proviso are as follows:

“Section 2. No motor car shall be operated on any highway until the same shall have been registered by the owner in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance, nor unless the same shall otherwise conform to the requirements of this ordinance.

Provided, however, that no registration shall be required of any motor car, while the same is in stock, for sale, of any dealer in motor cars, and which may be operated on a highway by such dealer or an employee of such dealer, for the purpose of exhibition of the same to an intending purchaser, and not for hire.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to motor vehicles owned by non residents of this Territory and only temporarily within this Territory, provided the owners thereof have complied with any law requiring the registration of owners of motor vehicles in force in the State, Territory or Federal district of their residence, and the registration number showing the initial of such State, Territory or Federal district shall be displayed on such vehicle substantially as provided in Section 6.”

“Section 6. Identification of Car. The owner of each motor car so registered shall, before such car shall be permitted to be operated upon any highway, display and keep displayed upon the rear part of said car, in such position that it can at all times be plainly seen, the registration number of said car, given to it by the Sheriff, under the terms of this ordinance.

Such numbers shall be four inches in height in white on a black background.”

Thus far, then, the ordinance requires the registration of cars, which is necessary for the purpose of identification in case operators of cars fail to observe their duties on the highways. 28 Cyc. 32; Huddy on Automobiles 37. By the ordinance all cars, whether owned by persons permanently or temporarily within the Territory, are required to be registered and carry a number which is uniform in size so that the car may be identified if necessary. There is nothing unreasonable in not requiring a temporary resident who has registered his car in some other territory or state to re-register it in this Territory. The requirement of registration is substantially similar for all cars, and consequently the ordinance is not unconstitutional in this respect.

The next contention involves Sec. 8 of the ordinance, which is as follows:

“Section 8....