Case ID: vt_71/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rowell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State vs. John Cruickshank.
    October Term, 1898.
    Present: Ross, C. J., Taft, Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Start and Thompson, JJ.
    Opinion filed January 26, 1899.
    
      Judicial Notice. — A complaint upon a city ordinance must set it forth, as-it is not within the judicial notice of the court.
    
      Conclusion of Complaint on Ordinance. — Such a complaint properly concludes against the form of the statute, and perhaps should conclude against the form of the ordinance.
    Complaint to the city court for the city of Barre by the city attorney. Heard in that court on demurrer to the complaint August 6, 1898. Demurrer overruled. The respondent excepted.
    
      Richard A. Hoar for the respondent,
    cited Bishop on Statutory Crime, (2d ed.) §§ 404-408; State v. Soragan, 40' Yt. 450; Keeler v. Milledge, 4 Zab. 142; 1 Archibald, Crim. P. &. P. 248; Wharton, Crim. P. & P. 9th ed., §§ 224, 225; Shanfelter v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 483; Green v. Indianapolis, 22 Ind. 192; Harker v. Mayor of N. Y, 17 Wend. 199; Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y. 250; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp. §§ 83, 414, 415.
    
      G. T. Swasey and John W. Gordon for the State.
    Although courts of general jurisdiction do not notice municipal ordinance's, a city court will recognize them because it bears the same relation to them which a state court bears to the laws of the State. State v. Leiber, 11 la. 407; Laporte v. Goodfellow, 47 la. 572; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th ed.) § 413; City of Salomon v. Hughes, 24 Kans. 211; Lanfear v. Mestier, 89 Am. Dec. 658 and note; Acts 1894, No. 165, § 77.
   Rowell, J.

This complaint lacks substance. It alleges that the respondent did ride a bicycle along and upon the sidewalk on a certain street in the city of Barre, “in violation of sections twenty-five and thirty-six of chapter thirteen of the ordinances of said city,” contra formam stattih. It should have set out the ordinances, as the court cannot take judicial notice of them. State v. Soragan, 40 Vt. 450.

It properly concluded against the form of the statute. State v. Soragan. Perhaps it should also have concluded against the form of the ordinances.

Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, complaint adjudged insufficient, and cause remanded.