Evening journal., 1914-01-15
OPEN LEGAL
GUNS ON The
AUTO LAW
After Lengthy Argument u
Points City Judge Reserves
Decision for Week
CASE MAY EFFECT
OTHER LEGISLATION

Argument in the case Of the State
VS.. Norman Worth. charged with
violating the automobile law by not
having the 1914 license tags on his
machine, was heard in City Court this
morning by Judge Churchman and
decision was reserved for one week.
The case was argued by City Solicit
tor Daniel o. Hastings for the State.
and Philip l.. Garrett for Worth. Tho
cases Of Walter Schmidt. Walter V.
Emory and John p. McGowan, which
turn on the same point as raised in
the Worth case, were also continued
for a week.
The case Is one of far reaching inn
portance. not only as a measure af-
fecting the automobile owners OF the
State, but as to the effect which
Judge Churchman'S decision may
have on some other acts of the Legis-
lature passed at the last session OF
the Legislature. Both attorneys filed
briefs for the courts consideration.
AZ the hearing OF the men in City
Court Thursday last. Mr.. Garrett OBJ
iected to section ~ OF the Motor We
hicle Law on the ground that il was
not passed by a two-thirds majority
as provided for by article 4, section
30 of the constitution of Delaware.
This section provided that the Gen
eral Assembly may give to any in
ferior court authority to try certain
specified misdemeanors and all other
specified misdemeanors and nuisances
as the Legislature may by two-thirds
vote prescribe. Page 774 of the SEN
ate Journal of 1909 shows that House
Bill No 312 came up for final pas
sage and received but eleven votes.
notwithstanding that the Senate had
IL members and l2 votes was there
fore required for a two-thirds vote.
Mr. Garrett claims that the remain
inc twenty-five sections oi Che act still
remain ia force because the constitu-
tional provision respecting two-thrds
vote does not apply TO them. Mr.
Hastings insists that Il part of the pres
ent act is void all of il IA void. and
therefore the old act is brought bacl, ia
force because the repeating clause of the
present act Is void with the other pro-
visions. 1t this is the decision of the
court the men could be- prosecuted under
the Old act of 1907 which i ,ub.lan
italy the same ns thc present measure.
Mr. Carrrit ID his brief insisted that
courts established hy lav cannot trans
ccnd the power granted nor can thciI
! Jurisdiction be enlarged by intondment
This proposition was not denied by Mr.
Hastings
Mr.. CARROTS brief set out the action
of The Senate IN passing the bill which
only received eleven votes, and cited a
J decision of Judge Spruance in the case
e lof Zuchowski ys. State, showing the
g authority Of the court 10 examine the
legislative iomnels lie also cited the
s Rash. Rose case in this State to the
r proposition that legislative journals
y will DE consulted to determine whether
a bill has been properly passed. H'
s also cited the language of Judge Cooley
8 and many other authorities. He claim
d led the bill should have received twelve
o Votes.
e lie stated that in this case il was al
e inferior court q statutory olfense, ang
r n special proceeding set out which mus
i be strictly followed. He claimed tha
n the other provisions of the act shoul'
, lremain IN force and should not be de
, lolared void because they could be in
d forced by mandamus, even they woul'
II be without q criminal penalty. III
q asked that the information be quashet
o for want of juridcition.
Is Mr.. Hastings declared that IL wa
not imperative that the constitution
D, ality OF the law be passed upon, an'
a that inferior courts would never pas
S. upon the constitutionality of law IN
l. less IL is necessary to dispose of tn
n case before them. He claimed that /
S. the present act is unconstitutional thu
act of 1907 is Immediately revived ant
Ie contains the same punishment for th'
Continued on Second Page.