The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1920-11-26

y. sections 3 and Of an ordinance:
81 tue city OF Wh"cl!nE. passed April t.
1870. relating I" the operation ~ motor
vehicles uprn its streets, bong in con
r.; with the provisions al Chapter a.
Of the Code. as r~-rnartcd by chapter 90
Acts 1917. known ~ the good roads law.
are void and uuenfrrC"ablc by criminal
OF other Legal proceedings.
80. When the RruCrai Jaw Of TIA state
has so dcalt Cump-ch"nSiV",y WIN t.;'
Su"JcCt matter of municipal ordinance.
TIC general law liz dominant and CON-
trolling and IN" ordinance - Invalid aa'l
uncaforc"ahlc. IN In" ahS"nC" of specific
authority conferred by the Legislature.
Tn: foregoing i:' the SiSt &C the DIN
!"n az Suprcm"'C"url Iudc" ". ~ Mil.
l"r. handed down Il, Charleston 'ar't""
in III" week. i'll tn" case Of State "N RAJ.
Frank Constant" versus Hon Alan IL.
E"hiwS"n. Judge.
,Iudg" Miller made th.s railing in
granting writ in prohibition rcS,rA'
ing Iudgv Alan IL. kobirS"n = th''
criminal court OF ohio county. from
,N"7ctN!ng any jurisdiction whatever III
Tn" prosecution proceedings q In" CITY
Warwn"I coal operator md heavy iru IL
! Owner.
ronS,an2o. ii Will he r'"'Il"u. vs.
lln"'i Sl"9 in r"l.rs court Ter IN alleged
violation of 4 provision "c Ia" city trat-
tic ordinance by leading :, coal truck II
excess of coo pounds pc: inch of tire
width. to-wlt: zoo pounds. contrary ~
the provisions "t tho ordinance. TIL"
writ in prohibition was ASKED ~ th'
Suprrm.. court. un tne ground hist in
thu Interim between the prosecution III
polio" court and the term -! court II
which tUnStanHU'S appeal was /" have
b"rn hoard. the Wheeling city council
repealed tn" provisions in question with
ont inserting in tn. new "rd!nanr" l.
clause saving the prosecutions already
started.
III" COPY Of judge Millcrs opinion.
received by Attorney Tom i; F"u.k
ON, - tUnStan counsel. however,
indicates that Judge Miller ia consider
ing the prayer for the writ. waivci thi'
claim. and attorneys for th'' %"rcri!
heavy truck operators interpret the dc
r!sion 81 Judg" Miller TO settle IN their
favor tho issues raised In tho num"rHi'
iuiunc' ION cases now pending to which
truck owners and tho city arr parties.
Judge KILLERS Grltng.
Ivy rule awarded on October L..
l?2n.' says the supreme court docu-
ment, respondent was summoned TO an
pear here and show cause why h.
should not be prohibited from proceed
ings I" try petitioner upon his app'"!
FROM Il judgment Of the police court OF
the city "t Wheeling. uron warra I
Of arrest issued July 8. 1920. CharCIr.t
aim with y violation, on juno 20. l?2n.
"r sections ) and ~ an ordinunc" Of
said city. passed April 6, l9@o, r"satmS
10 traffic on streets. alleys ana hIgn-
ways of said city. hut repealed or re-
vckcd without savings or rcs'rrations
respecting pending prosecutions, by an
ordinances PASSED July 10. 1870. INSOFAR
- in" same ar any part thereof N;'' IL
crrflirt herewith
Quoting verbatim tho "rc! isinns "f
sections , ana of ;h' ordinance o!
.\prii :, 1920. and rccitinG no SPECIFIC
~; # violation charged To- Frank Con-
stanzn. Judge Miller goes un 20 say:
The facts are not in di"rHt". y
number of legal questions are advanced
by the petitioners counse; I" ,.r"uiN
award Of tho writ. First, that IL" sun
iect matter Of the ordinance Of Aprii b;
1870. is fully and completely covered
by sections us ard ~ inr'uS,yr: ana
NJ chaptrr As Of thu code. The general
Jaw. and that the ordinance III QUESTION
IS IN conflict with the Statui" anu car
not avail over thr provisions "f the
General law: second. that u# the ordi>
u,mc" rr April s. 1920. was rcr"HI'" o.
revoked BY the ancndatory ordirnncs or
July IS, 1890, without savings or r"S"r'
r:,tions. rs stated. tn" prosecution