The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1917-02-08
JUDGE BELDEN HOLDS THAT
JITNEY LAW IS VALID

conclusion at this time whether the
defendant is guilty of the charge made
against him by this information or
not. Evidence must be heard and con-
sidered to that end. In Dickey vs..
Davis, supra, the West Virginia SUI
preme Court Of Appeals held that
though legislative regulation of the
business of common carriers using the
public highways might be considered
drastic there could be no doubt Of the
full and complete power Of the legis-
lature to enact such legislation. The
Supreme Court of Wisconsin, as stated
by Winslow, G. j. in Krom VS.. Amigo
Gas Co. 154 Wis. 52S, 535, in a series
of decisions commencing many years
ago, has construed certain statutes
highly drastic and penal in their
nature, as covering only wilful
acts and omissions and not acts or
omissions resulting from mere inadver-
tence or excusable negligence. In
Cohn VS.. Neeves, 40 Wis. 1913, the court
held that penal statutes must be
strictly construed and that in the
construction of statutes generally
courts will not always follow the strict
letter of the law but give effect to
the intent. Whether that reasoning is
applicable to cases such as this, where
the accused claims immunity because
his automobile was out of repair, or
to eases where the operator claims he
was unable to operate his automobile
because of physical incapacity, illness
or for number Of reasons that might
be offered as an excuse for not comply
ing with the statute, whether if the
evidence shall satisfactorily show that
the inability of the defendant to com
ply with his schedule was due to causes
beyond his control, and if SO whether
mere technical violation of the letter
of the statute without any wilful in
tent to violate it, without any careless
ness upon his part in the operation of
his jitney bus which necessitated put
ting it in the garage for repairs,
whether any circumstances might ex-
cuse the operator Of a jitney bus for
not complying with the statute, are
questions, which, together with the
duty of the court, can be determined
only upon the facts and circumstances
of individual cases as they arise.
Where an act in itself not criminal is
prohibited by statute on grounds of
public policy, and the statute does not
make the criminality of the act depend
upon its being wilfully, or maliciously
or knowingly done, it has frequently
been held that the criminal intent is
immaterial. A statute may throw on
the defendant the burden Of keeping
within it's requirements and may make
the doing of the prohibited act criminal
without regard to the intent In such
cases it is not necessary to allege or
prove intent. Where the statute makes
it criminal to conduct without license
business which is subject to police
regulations, the person carrying on
such business may be required TO act
at his peril. McClain Grim Law
S12S. Operating without a number
plate is an offense without regard to
criminal intent. Berry Autos 1912.
The only intention necessary to render
a person liable to penalty for vio-
lation of an automobile statute is
the doing of The act prohibited Berry
Autos. 1898. The mere doing of a pro-
hibited act implies intent. The rea-
son for this rule is obvious These
matters, however, have nothing to do
with consideration of the validity Of
the law and need not be now deter
mined. The several regulatory provi-
sions and requirements of the statute,
which were accepted and, as to route,
territory, hours and fare, were chosen
and designated by the operator him
self, are all in the interest of public
accommodation, convenience and safe
ty and are reasonable.
Statutes such as are here in ques-
ton are not class legislation. Such
acts apply to and affect alike all mem
bers of the same class A law is not
to be regarded as class legislation
simply because it affects one class,
and not another providing it affects
all members of that same class alike,
and the classification is founded upon
a reasonable basis. Such a law is
general, not special.
The only matter now before the
court is the question whether the
statute in question is valid That be-
ing determined afirmatively it fol
lows that the demurrer to the informa-
ton, interposed in behalf of the de-
PENDANT, must be over-ruled.'