{ "id": 1907392, "name": "Hot Springs v. Curry", "name_abbreviation": "Hot Springs v. Curry", "decision_date": "1897-05-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "152", "last_page": "155", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 Ark. 152" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "43 Ark. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1894438 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/43/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 Ind. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1373145 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/118/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ark. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913350 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0312-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 435, "char_count": 7926, "ocr_confidence": 0.486, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.302015837951585e-07, "percentile": 0.8719305642915861 }, "sha256": "5fe786a1657154ea6bd9d4147497e07b712ad85e28fb6d4f0a34d2c946d0d249", "simhash": "1:2e2fb75019bc64be", "word_count": 1390 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:52.333368+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Hot Springs v. Curry." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hughes, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) The circuit court adjudged the \u25a0 defendant not guilty \u201cbecause section 4 of said ordinance was unreasonable and void.\u201d The ordinance was enacted in accordance with the terms of an express proviso by the act of the general assembly, in which it is provided that \u201cthey (the council) shall have power\u201d \u201cto regulate drumming or soliciting persons who arrive on trains, or otherwise, for hotels, boarding houses, bath houses or doctors; to license such drummers, and to provide that each drummer shall wear a badge plainly exposed to view, showing for whom, and for what he, is drumming or soliciting patronage, and to punish by fine any violation of this provision.\u201d Sand. So H. Dig., \u00a7 5132.\n\u201cIf an express power is given to a corporation to enact ordinances of a certain kind, the legislature thereby trust to the discretion of the council to determine just how far they shall go within the limits imposed; and there is every presumption that the council are not only actuated by pure motives, but that they are so familiar with the mischief to be remedied, and with defects of the prior regulations, as to be the best possible judges of the necessity for the enactment of the new law, and of the extent to which it is advisable to exercise the power granted. The council, and not the court, is the repository of this public trust, and it should be a plain case indeed to justify the latter in interfering with the determination of the council, or of questioning either their motives or the cogency of their reasons for enacting the ordinance. Surely, when an ordinance is, upon its face, purely within the terms of an express power, the court ought not to interfere on the ground of unreasonableness. It is restricted to consider the constitutionality of the act granting the power.\u201d Horr & Bejnis, Mun. Pol. Ord. \u00a7 128.\nThe ordinance in question appears on its face to be valid, and there is no evidence that it is unreasonable, and unless the contrary appears on tW face of the ordinance, or is established by proper evidence, the court will presume it reasonable. Fayetteville v. Carter, 52 Ark. 312.\nThe ordinance does exceed the limits of the power granted by the act of the legislature. There is no pretence that the act is unconstitutional. The circuit court erred in holding section 4 of the ordinance \u201cunreasonable and void.\u201d\nThe judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hughes, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "W. R. Martin and O. D. Greaves, for appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Hot Springs v. Curry.\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1897.\nMunicipal Ordinance\u2014Reasonableness.\u2014When an ordinance is, upon its face, within the terms of an express statutory power, the courts ought not to interfere with it on the ground of unreasonableness. (Page 154.)\nAppeal from Garland Circuit Court.\nAlexander M. Duppie, Judge.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe appellee, being a drummer or solicitor for the Palmyra Hotel in the city of Hot Springs, was charged in its police court with a violation of section 4 of an ordinance passed November 2, 1893, by not wearing a badge, as prescribed by said ordinance, while being engaged in or plying his business.\nOn appeal to the circuit court the case was submitted to the trial judge, sitting as a jury, upon the following agreed statement of facts: \u201cIt is agreed, for the purpose of submitting the question of law arising in this case to the court, that the defendant, J. M. Curry, did on the 17th day of July, 1895, and prior to the filing of the affidavit in this case, engage in the business of drumming and soliciting strangers who arrived in the city of Hot Springs to patronize the Palmyra Hotel; that said business of drumming and soliciting was carried on in the city of Hot Springs, Garland county, Arkansas; that, while so engaged in said business, the defendant did not wear the badge required by section 4 of the ordinance of the city of Hot Springs relative to drumming, passed and approved November 2, 1893. It is further agreed that said ordinance, attached to and made a part of this agreement, was duly and legally passed by the council of said city. It is further agreed that there is a large number of hotels, boarding houses, bath houses and physicians in said city of Hot Springs.\u201d\nThe ordinance referred to was entitled: \u201cAn ordinance to regulate drumming or soliciting of persons who arrive in the city of Hot Springs, on trains or otherwise, for hotels, boarding houses, bath houses or doctors; to provide that each \u25a0drummer shall wear a badge plainly exposed to view, showing for whom and what he, is drumming or soliciting patronage, \u25a0and to punish by fine or imprisonment any violation of this \u25a0ordinance.\u201d Section 1 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to drum or solicit persons who arrive, on trains or \u25a0otherwise, for any hotel, boarding house, bath house or doctor, without first obtaining a license, and paying the city $25 per annum, and giving bond in the sum of $100 for his good behavior. Section 2 defines the words \u201cbusiness of drumming or soliciting.\u201d Section 3 provides that a license shall include \u25a0only one hotel, boarding-house, or bath house, ' or doctor. Section 4 is as follows: \u201c Every person obtaining a drummer\u2019s license, as herein provided for, shall be required at all time, whilst engaged in and carrying on such business in any hotel, boarding or bath house, on or in any railroad train, \u25a0depot or platform, public car, omnibus; street hack or carriage, or any of the streets or public places, or elsewhere in the city \u2022of Hot Springs, to wear upon his or her person, plainly exposed to view, a badge showing for whom or for what he or she is \u2022drumming or soliciting. Such badge \u2022 shall be of hard metal, \u25a0such as heavy tin or brass, and not less than three inches across the face, and shall be worn by a male on the lapel of his coat, and by a female on the breast of her dress or other outer garment, uncovered and plainly exposed to view. Upon each badge the \u25a0following inscription, in Roman letters as large as the surface will allow, shall be engraved and colored in: The name of the Rotel, or boarding house, or bath house, for which such licensee is drumming or soliciting, preceded by the words \u2018Drummer For\u2019 and followed by the word \u2018Hotel\u2019 or \u2018House\u2019 or \u2018Bath House,\u2019 as \"the ease may be, or the name of the doctor or physician for which such license is drumming or soliciting, preceded by the words \u2018Drummer for Doctor,\u2019 and in all cases for whom or for what, as expressed in the license or licenses procured and issued as aforesaid.\u201d Section 5 provides that the city clerk shall furnish the badge upon application. Section 6 provides for the penalties for any violation of the ordinance.\nThe court, upon said agreed statement of facts, declared the defendant not guilty, because section 4 of said ordinance was unreasonable and void.\nThe appellant excepted to the findings and judgment of the court, and filed motion for a new trial on the following grounds: (1) The court erred in its conclusions of law upon the agreed statement of facts submitted, and upon which this cause was tried. (2) The findings and judgment of the court are against the law and the agreed statement of facts. The motion was overruled, and appellant excepted.\nW. R. Martin and O. D. Greaves, for appellant.\nThe council had power to pass the ordinance. Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 5132; 45 Hun (N. Y.) 41; 118 Ind. 41; 27 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 142; Horr So Bemis, Mun. Pol. Ord., \u00a7 89. The ordinance is reasonable. The reasonableness of an ordinance ought never to be questioned when it is enacted in accordance with the terms of an express power. Horr & Bemis, Mun. Pol. Ord., \u00a7\u00a7 128, 129. The burden is on the party who denies the validity of an ordinance. Ib., \u00a7\u00a7 188, 189. Unless the contrary appears on the face of the ordinance, or is established by proper evidence, the courts presume the ordinance reasonable. 43 Ark. 82; 56 'id. 370; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4 Ed.), \u00a7\u00a7 327, 328, 420, and note." }, "file_name": "0152-01", "first_page_order": 170, "last_page_order": 173 }