Morris tribune., 1896-07-22
IMPORTANT
Decision Handed Down by Judge
Brown Last Week.
Lower Court Affirmed and Bicy-
Gle Ordinance Stands.

The case that has attracted more
than usual interest the past two
months, especially among bicyclers,
came to a very satisfactory ending
last week when Judge Brown handed
down his decision. Some two months
ago the village council passed an or
dinance prohibiting the use of
bicycles on the sidewalks. A short
while after complaint was made
against DIR. ]. W. Harris who was
brought before justice and fined IS.
The case was ably prosecuted by city
Attorney r. Fl. Grace and defended
by G. E. Darling. The bicyclers, of
the city, not being satisfied with the
decision, and for the sake of making
it test case, got together and
arranged to appeal the case to the
district court, which was done with
the above results. We herewith
give the full decision of Judge Brown:
State of Minnesota, County of
Stevens.-ss. In District Court
18th Judicial District. The Village
of Morris, Plaintiff. vs. John W.
Harris, Defendant
This case came into this court upon
the defendants appeal on question of
law alone, from judgment of justice
of the peace. 1t came on for hearing
in vacation by consent of parties and
was submitted to the court by r. H.
Grace Esq, for the plaintiff, and G.,
E. Darling, Esq, for the defendant.
The action or prosecution seems to
be an amicable one and for the purpose
of determining the validity of an ordi-
nance against riding bicycles on side
walks of the village. No points are
made as to the suficiency of the pro-
ceeding before the justice, and at the
hearing before this court it was
agreed that the only question in
volved in the case is as to the vadility
of such ordinance. The ordinance
was presented on this hearing, and is
entitled San Ordinance Prohibiting
the Use of Bicycles on the Sidewalks
of the Village of Norris It pro-
vides that no person or persons shall
ride bicycle on any of the sidewalks
of the village, and penalty is fixed
for the violation thereof.
The point made against ordinance
is that the village charter contains no
authority for its enactment, and that
it is consequently void and of no
validity A full examination of the
subject leads to the conclusion that
the point is not well taken. It is be-
lieved that subdivision 6 of section Is
of the charter Chapter 80, Special
Laws of 81, p. 1867 is sufficient au
thority and foundation for the ordi
nance, and it is held valid, See also
%. Subdivision 6 ex-
pressly authorizes the village to pre-
vent the incumbering of the streets
and sidewalks with carriages, carts,
sleighs, ETC., etc. Cucumber" means
to obstruct or overburden; and a
bicycle is a carriage" within the
Of this statute.
State VS.. Collins, 3 Lawyers Re-
ports 1874, (R. H.; Mercer vs.. Corbin,
3 L. Rep, -, Qnd.); Twilling VS..
Perkins, 10 L. Rep, 632, Md. and |
note.
And besides, the village having the
sole care, supervision and control of |
the streets and sidewalks, the ordi-
nance is valid as a police regulation
under the general welfare clause"
in the charter.
See section Is of charter; also Is
Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 1l66,
title police Regulation" page 1867,
title, "Public Peace, ETC." and page
1857; "a Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law,
1O8 and 118, and State VS.. Yopp, 81
N. C. AT.
The order of the court is that the
Judgment appealed from be and the
same is hereby in all things affirmed.
G. L. BROWN,
District Judge.
Dated July Is, 1896.