Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Louis O. SILSETH, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1987-01-20
Citations: 399 N.W.2d 868
Docket Number: Cr. No. 1142
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Louis O. SILSETH, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: VANDE WALLE, J., concurs.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 399
Pages: 868–872

Head Matter:
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Louis O. SILSETH, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. No. 1142.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Jan. 20, 1987.
Richard R. Tessier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee.
Johnson, Johnson, Stokes, Sandberg & Kragness, Wahpeton, for defendant and appellant; argued by A.W. Stokes.

Opinion:
LEVINE, Justice.
Louis 0. Silseth appeals from a, judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating Section 24-12-02(2), N.D.C.C., which provides in pertinent part: "No person shall . Willfully and knowingly obstruct or plow up . any public highway or right of way...." We affirm.
Silseth owns a parcel of property which includes land lying on both sides of a section line. He concedes that he has plowed the entire width of the section line and has planted corn thereon. A neighbor who uses the section line to reach his property signed a complaint alleging that Silseth was in violation of the statute. The matter was tried to a jury and Silseth was convicted of the charge.
Silseth contends on appeal that Section 24-12-02(2), N.D.C.C., does not apply because the section line involved in this case had not been opened by any governmental action and therefore was not a public highway. This contention was raised and answered in Small v. Burleigh County, 225 N.W.2d 295, 300 (N.D.1974):
"We hold that congressional section lines outside the limits of incorporated cities, unless closed by proceedings permitted by statute, are open for public travel without the necessity of any prior action by a board of township supervisors or county commissioners."
See also State v. Meyer, 361 N.W.2d 221, 222 (N.D.1985); DeLair v. County of LaMoure, 326 N.W.2d 55, 59 (N.D.1982).
Silseth also contends that Section 24-12-02(2) does not apply because it is applicable to public highways, whereas section lines are considered public roads pursuant to Section 24-07-03, N.D.C.C. However, Section 24-01-01.1(20), N.D.C.C., indicates that the terms "highway" and "road" are interchangeable:
" 'Highway, street, or road' shall mean a general term denoting a public way for purposes of vehicular travel, including the entire area within the right of way. A highway in a rural area may be called a 'road', while a highway in an urban area may be called a 'street'."
Section lines are often referred to as highways. See, e.g., Small v. Burleigh County, supra, 225 N.W.2d at 297.
We also note that Section 24-12-02(2) applies to "any public highway or right of way." A right of way is defined by Section 24-01-01.1(37), N.D.C.C.:
" 'Right of way' shall mean a general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, acquired for or devoted to highway purposes...."
We conclude that a section line is a "public highway or right of way" under Section 24-12-02(2).
Silseth asserts that as the fee owner of the property on both sides of the section line he is entitled to use the property in any way not inconsistent with the public's easement for travel. Although Sil-seth is correct in asserting that he is the fee owner and that the traveling public enjoys only an easement, the Legislature has the power, within reasonable limits, to define what constitutes interference with the public's easement. Hjelle v. J.C. Snyder & Sons, 133 N.W.2d 625, 630 (N.D.1965). By enacting Section 24-12-02(2), the Legislature has declared that plowing a section line constitutes such interference.
Silseth also contends that the Legislature could not have intended that it be unlawful to farm on the section line, and he urges us to hold that merely plowing a section line without a resulting obstruction of the public's ability to travel thereon does not constitute a violation of Section 24-12-02(2), N.D.C.C. In effect, Silseth asks us to construe the statutory proscription of "obstruct or plow up" to actually mean "obstruct and plow up."
Words used in a statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense unless a contrary intention plainly appears. Section 1-02-02, N.D.C.C. In its ordinary sense, the term "or" is a conjunction indicating an alternative between different things or actions. Tennefos v. Guarantee Mutual Life Co., 136 N.W.2d 155, 157 (N.D.1965); Backman v. Guy, 126 N.W.2d 910, 913-914 (N.D.1964).
Silseth has cited no legislative history or other authority which evinces an intent by the Legislature that the word "or" in Section 24-12-02(2) be construed other than in its ordinary sense. The statute unambiguously proscribes plowing of a section line, irrespective of whether or to what degree that action obstructs the section line. Where the Legislature has clearly spoken, we are not free to rewrite the statute to engraft the additional requirement that the plowing also obstruct the public's access for purpose of travel. Sil-seth's remedy, if any, lies with the Legislature.
We hold that Section 24-12-02(2) applies to section lines and that Silseth violated that statute when he admittedly plowed the entire width of the section line.
Silseth contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested instruction on mistake of law. We find this argument to be without merit.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
VANDE WALLE, J., concurs.
. Section 24-12-05, N.D.C.C., makes the violation of any provision of Title 24 for which a penalty is not specifically prescribed a class B misdemeanor.