The Waterbury Democrat., 1943-06-16
Meters Legal; City
Wins Court Verdict
Continued from Page u

cost coins ranging in value from
one cent for fifteen minutes to five
cents for one hour. The plaintiff
brought an action for an injunction
requiring the city TO remove the
meters in front Of his premises. and
for damages. The principal conclu-
sion Of the trial court was that the
General Assembly has not given the
city authority to purchase meters,
install them in and upon the side
walks and charge fee to motorists
for parking adjacent to the meters.
judgment was rendered command
ing the defendant to remove the
meters located on the sidewalks In
front Of the plaintiffs premises, and
for 800 damages. The defendant
has appealed.
1.-The law governing the right to
install and operate parking meters
is one of general concern. We,
therefore, state the foundation prin-
ciples universally applicable, and
then decide whether the defendant
city had power or authority to in
stall and operate parking meters.
and whether the plaintiff Is entitled
to the relief granted him.
The power to regulate the use OF
streets and highways by restrictions
on the parking of vehicles is one uni
versally recognized, and its reason
able exercise is consistently upheld.
The power is in the legislature. 1t
may be delegated by it to its mu-
nicipal subdivisions. The common
way OF enforcing parking regula-
tons, restrictive as to time, is by
the use of a police officer. He notes
the time of arrival by his watch, and
later checks the length OF time the
vehicle has remained in that par
ticular place. If the period is be-
yord the time limit set by munich
pal regulation, he tickets the vehl-
Gle. Such supervision is generally
by the chalk method. This has linz
itations and faults. A new method
has come into general use; the in
stallation and operation of park
ing meters. A parking meter is a
clock set on a post. 1t measures the
time of parking. 1t provides me-
chanical assistance in the enforce
ment Of the parking limitation. A
municipality may provide parking
meters to measure the time of park
ing as we'll as 1t may measure time
by other means. There is no reas-
enable difference in priciple be-
tween measuring time by the watch
and chalk method and the mechan-
ical meter method. Parking meters
are not self-enforcing. Policemen
are required to supervise and en-
force the system. The power to
exact a fee to cover the reasonable
cost of the meters, to install, oper-
ate, repair and supervise them, is
well settled. The regulative meas
ure u not invalidated because Incl
dentally the city,s receipts Of money
are increased.
These general principles of law
are sustained by the weight of auth
ority and of reason.
We have found only two cases
which deny the power to regulate
traffic by the installation and main
tainenance of parking meters: Bir-
mingham v. Hood-McPherson Realty
Co., 233 Ala. 352, 172, SO. ia, 108
A. L. R. 1140; Rhodes, Inc. V. Raleigh
PIT N. C. SGT, 9 s. E. (2d) $3.50, 100
A. L. r. 311. The cases of Shreve-
port v. Brister, 1874 La. els, 1874 So.
566, MONSIEUR v. Shreveport, 1874 La,
625, 1874 So. 500 and In re Opinion
to the House of Representatives,
81 r. I. BAT, 5 All. (2d) ass, are
predicted upon lack of charter or
legislative authority in the bodies
attempting to install the parking
meter system. The Alabama case,
supra, is easily distinguishable on
It's facts.
"a vital question is whether the
revenue received by the city through
The use of the meters has some rea-