Case Title: King v. City of Clarksdale

Citation: 186 So. 2d 228

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1966-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
186 So. 2d 228 (1966) Willie KING v. CITY OF CLARKSDALE. No. 44042. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 9, 1966. Carsie A. Hall, Jackson, Jack Greenberg, Charles H. Jones, Jr., Melvyn Zarr, New York City, for appellant. William H. Maynard, Clarksdale, James A. Phyfer, Jackson, James E. Upshaw, Clarksdale, for appellee. JONES, Justice: Appellant was convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Clarksdale on a charge of parading without a permit. The conviction was affirmed by the county court and by the circuit court from whence it comes here. The proof showed no disorderly conduct nor any distracting activity, and we are compelled to reverse the case and dismiss the appellant. The sole question argued by appellant is the unconstitutionality of the city ordinance under which he was convicted. The first section thereof reads as follows: It will be seen that this ordinance confers upon the chief of police of the city unrestricted discretion as to who shall or shall not parade or march on the sidewalks or streets of the city, with no standards as to time, place of marching or any other feature. In Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S. Ct. 762, 85 L. Ed. 1049 (1941), a somewhat similar ordinance was held valid by the Supreme Court of the United States because of the construction placed *229 thereupon by the New Hampshire court. The Court said: With reference to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, the Court in that same opinion said: Following that case, the Supreme Court of the United States had before it Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1965), where the Court considered a somewhat similar statute of the State of Louisiana under which *230 appellant was convicted. There, the Court said: Our own Court in civil cases has held to the same effect regarding statutes vesting unbridled discretion in administrative agencies. In State v. Allstate Ins. Co., 231 Miss. 869, 97 So. 2d 372 (1957), this Court held: This case was followed by Broadhead v. Monaghan, Tax Commission, 238 Miss. 239, 263, 117 So. 2d 881, 892 (1960), wherein the Court said: It is clear that under these decisions, the ordinance in question is null and void as vesting unfettered discretion in the chief of police, and we are therefore required to reverse and dismiss this case, discharging the appellant. Reversed and case dismissed, discharging appellant. GILLESPIE, P.J., and BRADY, PATTERSON and INZER, JJ., concur.