Evening journal., 1914-01-22
JUDGE CHURCHMAN SAVES
AUTO LAW, BUT FINED MAN
TAKES CASE TO HIGH COURT
Without Passing Specifically Upon the Question OF
ConsfifufonaIify of 1909 Statute, The Judge Sus-
fains Charge Against Norman Worth for Not Hav-
ing 1914 Tag.
PUTS FINE OF SIS UPON WORTH;
OTHERS, PLEADING GUILTY, FINED $lO

Judge HnlHp ". CnuIcumdu, III inc
city Court this morning gave Il deci-
sion in the automobile tag cases that
saved an automobile law to Delaware
and did not declare unconstitutional
any law.
Just whether he saved the law of
1909, part of which Philip L. Garrett
had argued was unconstitutional, or
whether he revived the auto law of
1907, is for a higher court 20 de-
termine AT any rate. Judge Church
man denied Mr. CARROTS motion to
luash the information filed against
Norman Worth, accused of running
IN automobile that did not display a
1914 tag. Here is Judge Churchman s
language concluding a long opinion
ne read in the Worth case, in which
Ae analysed the points raised:
/ am very clear that If the act
OF 1909 is unconstitutional, Il is
unconstitutional as a whole. and
not in part; and If so, il never
had the force of law, and it must
therefore follow that the acts of
1906 and 1907 we're never repeal
ed and are in force.
If the Act of 1909 is constitu-
tional and valid, the motion to
quash must be denied, and If it is
invalid and unconstitutional, il is
and was invalid in its entirety,
and this charge can be prosecuted
under the Act of 1907, so the mo-
ton must be refused.
II will thus be seen that while Judge
ghurchman denied a motion to quasi
he information against Worth. he die
so without declaring unconstitutiona
the present automobile law or any part
bf il, or without specifically reviving the
Did law. Judge Churchman followed 9
general principle of saving the statute
wherever possible.
After the Judge had read his decision
Assistant City Solicitor Lynn and Mr.
Garrett announced that they were ready
10 proceed with the trial of the Wortl
case. Officer Purcell was called and ties
tilted he arrested Worth at Tenth anC
Shipley streets ON January !. whil
Worth was operating his machine oI
Tenth street He had a Pennsylvania
license of 1913 on his machine and stat
ed to the officer that he had applied TO
1914 license Judge Churchman calle'
for the law and imposed a fine of Sl'
and costs. he stated that he would Im
pose q heavier fine because Worth hal
pleaded not guilty, $40 usually bein
The fine where plea OF guilty is enter
ed.
Walter Schmidt. Walter V. Emer,
John p. McGowan and George Reed, VIII
had been arrested and their cases con
tinued until Judge Churchman shoul
rule on the law. were aTaigned and al
pleaded guilty and were fined $40 an
costs each. MCGOWAN was operatin
under % Pennsylvania license of l9l;
he stated that he had applied for his j
teuse and card but had not receive
them when his arrest was made.
Following the decision in the Wort
case bir Garrett asked Chief Black I
nave an officer accompany his client I
The Court House aud he obtained wri
Df certorari that will bring the questio
Of eonstitutionality OF the auto law be
lore the judges in Superior Court, wner
MIR. Garrett viii argue the case.
Mr.. CARROTS contention befor
Judge Churchman was that the auto
mobile law penalties cannot be en-
forced. because the Legislature ha
not constitutionally passed the pen
Rlties clause. Mr.. Garrett contende
that the penalties clause was a ne'
bower conferred upon inferior couru
and required the concurrence OF two
thirds of the members Of each branc
lf the Legislature to pass it unde
The Constitution. He contended tina
:he remainder OF the automobile La
Is constitutional.
City Solicitor Hastings argued thi
if the penalties clause I'm the 1908 aut
Jaw was unconstitutional, then tl
whole law was unconstitutional.
that were the case he argued, the
the auto law of 1907 would be revise
automatically and its provision
md penalties would apply This vie
was taken by Judge Churchmal
whose opinion saves TO the State
law TO regulate the speed and use
automobiles.
The cfl.come of the Worth case al
real to the Superior Court Will no
be awaited with interest It is gel
orally admitted among lawyers th'
tie point raised by Mr.. Garrett
important and may be lar-reaching
its effects upon some other laws in
posing penalties that may not ha'
heen passed with the concurrence
two-thirds of the members Of ea'
branch of the Legislature.
Judge Churchman's opinion in q
case is as follows:
Judges Decision.
State VS. Worth. January term, l9l
Motion to quash information.
Tho defendant was arrested, char
ID with violating one Of the regul
ions of what is known as the .'aut
mobile law" Of the State, and b
Counsel moves to quash the inform