Norwich bulletin., 1920-09-02
Judge Grants Partial Injunction
 Favoring Jitney Men Against City

ever, quite clearly attempts to license not the receiving of passengers, for hire but to license the drivers or operators of vehicles so receiving passengers. In said section one 1t is provided that no pub lie conveyance shall receive passengers for hire without it is being operated or driven by a person licensed to so oper- ate and drive as herein and hereinafter in this ordinance provided :" section two provides that the chief of police "shall issue license to such operator or driv- CT :" section six provides for a report of 'the number of operators or drivers so licensed ;' and section ten avoids the license of any Operator or driver" upon second conviction of violation of any traffic ordinance. Other similar provi- sions characterizing the nature and ob- ject of the ordinance might be pointed out. The real purpose and effect of the ordinance appears to be, not a permissi- ble licensing of the business of carrying passengers for hire, but, as applied to the driver of public service motor ve- hicle, to require license and payment of fee therefor" for driving the car which the state has licensed him to drive" in issuing to him a license as public ser vice motor vehicle operator (State vs Scheidler.)
 At least the invalidity of said ordin- ance on this ground appears so reasona- bly, probable as to justify suspension of it's enforcement pending full hearing and final determination of this action.
 Section one of this action set forth as subdivision Co in paragraph 10 of the complaint prohibits the operation of pub lie service motor vehicles, as such, up- on certain designated streets and portions of streets in the city of Norwich. It does not purport to fix traffic routes for such vehicles nor is it claimed that it does except as, by inference merely. the streets not designated as streets from which said vehicles are excluded are left open to use by public service motor ve- hicles
 While the power conferred upon mu- nfcipalities, by section 30, Chapter 233 public acts of 1919 to fix, by ordinance traffic routes for public service motor vehicles, necessarily includes the implied power to exclude such vehicles from streets not included in traffic routes so established. (Park City Bus Asscn vs Bridgeport), said power to exclude Is merely incident to the power to fix rout- ed and cannot be exercised without. or independently of, such fixing of routes The mode of exercise of said powa, is 1 prescribed by the statute and to. render valid an ordinance dependent upon said ] statutory power the prescribed mode mus | be strictly followed. Dillon Municipali l ty Corporations. section 600)
 Therefore such an ordinance, passed
 under the power conferred by Section 30 chapter 23S. of the public acts of 1919 as the section under consideration mus 1 have been and confessedly was, must tt be sustained, legislate in the manner pre-
 scribed by said statute i. e.-by the fix | ing of traffic routes and not solely b! l the exclusion from certain designated l streets in the attempted exercise of ; l power which, as above indicated, is in
 cluded only as and when necessary in | cident and consequence. of the establish
 ment of such traffic routes.
 It may be that there is no difference il practical results between an ordinanc | such as that involved in Molzon, ct al l vs. City of Waterbury, temporary injunc ton against the enforcement of whicl has been denied. which said crdinanc designates all the streets of the city a traffic routes except certain name streets and parts of streets, and tn | ordinance here under consideration, bu
 there the power was exercises in tn