State v. Cruickshank

State v. John Cruickshank

State v. Cruickshank, 42 A. 983 (Vt. 1899)

Court: Supreme Court of Vermont · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 26, 1899
Judges: Munson, Ross, Rowell, Start, Taft, Thompson, Tyler
Citations: 42 A. 98371 Vt. 941899 Vt. LEXIS 141

Cited by 4

Headnotes

Judicial Notice. — A complaint upon a city ordinance must set it forth, as-it is not within the judicial notice of the court. Conclusion of Complaint on Ordinance. — Such a complaint properly concludes against the form of the statute, and perhaps should conclude against the form of the ordinance.

Summary

Complaint to the city court for the city of Barre by the city attorney. Heard in that court on demurrer to the complaint August 6, 1898. Demurrer overruled. The respondent excepted. cited Bishop on Statutory Crime, (2d ed.) §§ 404-408; State v. Soragan, 40' Yt. 450; Keeler v. Milledge, 4 Zab. 142; 1 Archibald, Crim. P. &. P. 248; Wharton, Crim. P. & P. 9th ed., §§ 224, 225; Shanfelter v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 483; Green v. Indianapolis, 22 Ind. 192; Harker v. Mayor of N. Y, 17 Wend. 199; Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y. 250; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp. §§ 83, 414, 415. Although courts of general jurisdiction do not notice municipal ordinance's, a city court will recognize them because it bears the same relation to them which a state court bears to the laws of the State. State v. Leiber, 11 la. 407; Laporte v. Goodfellow, 47 la. 572; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th ed.) § 413; City of Salomon v. Hughes, 24 Kans. 211; Lanfear v. Mestier, 89 Am. Dec. 658 and note; Acts 1894, No. 165, § 77.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rowell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rowell, J.

This complaint lacks substance. It alleges that the respondent did ride a bicycle along and upon the sidewalk on a certain street in the city of Barre, “in violation of sections twenty-five and thirty-six of chapter thirteen of the ordinances of said city,” contra formam stattih. It should have set out the ordinances, as the court cannot take judicial notice of them. State v. Soragan, 40 Vt. 450 .

It properly concluded against the form of the statute. State v. Soragan . Perhaps it should also have concluded against the form of the ordinances.

Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, complaint adjudged insufficient, and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Tyrrell122 A. 924 (Conn. 1923)
Hambley v. Town of St. Johnsbury290 A.2d 18 (Vt. 1972)
State v. Pelletier185 A.2d 456 (Vt. 1962)
State v. Bosworth52 A. 423 (Vt. 1902)

Most recent

Hambley v. Town of St. Johnsbury290 A.2d 18 (Vt. 1972)
State v. Pelletier185 A.2d 456 (Vt. 1962)
State v. Tyrrell122 A. 924 (Conn. 1923)
State v. Bosworth52 A. 423 (Vt. 1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Soragan, 40 Vt. 450 (1867)	14

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list