City of Shawnee v. Landon

1910 OK CR 35, 106 P. 652, 3 Okla. Crim. 440, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 1, 1910
DocketNo. A-71.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1910 OK CR 35 (City of Shawnee v. Landon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Shawnee v. Landon, 1910 OK CR 35, 106 P. 652, 3 Okla. Crim. 440, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

FUBMAN, Presiding Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It is a fundamental principal of criminal law, based on manifest justice, that penal statutes are not to be enlarged by implication or extended by inference. No person can be convicted of a crime unless the act committed is clearly within both the letter and the spirit of a penal statute. To our minds it is clear that the meaning of the ordinance involved in this case is to pro *442 hibit and punish the riding or driving within the corporate limit.? of the City of Shawnee of'horses, mules, or any other beast faster than an ordinary traveling gait, or to recklessly ride or drive any such beast within the corporate limits of said city so as to endanger the safety of others, even though such riding and driving be not faster than an ordinary gait. Were it not for the latter part óf the section, a defendant might ride or drive a beast upon the sidewalk in a most reckless manner and with great danger to others and still not violate the law. This section must be construed as a whole, and each of its parts consid^ ered in connection with its other parts. From this standpoint, it is clear that this ordinance was intended to regulate the riding and driving of horses, mules and other beasts, and does not include vehicles not drawn by horses, mules or other beasts. That the city may reasonably regulate the speed of bicycles, automobiles, or any other means of com^ance within its limits cannot be disputed. But it has not attempted to do so in this ordinance.

There was no error in the ruling of the trial court, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

DOYXiE and OWEN, Judges, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Denton v. Winner Communications, Inc.
1986 OK CIV APP 20 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1986)
Ex Parte Barnett
1953 OK CR 2 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1953)
State v. Sandfer
1951 OK CR 4 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1951)
Curtis v. Registered Dentists of Oklahoma
1943 OK 366 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1943)
McDonald v. State
1932 OK CR 187 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1932)
Ex Parte Gresham
1932 OK CR 130 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1932)
Ex Parte Pack
1931 OK CR 319 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1931)
Morgan v. State
1929 OK CR 529 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1929)
Ex Parte Isabell
1924 OK CR 2 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1924)
State v. Smith
1921 OK CR 108 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1921)
Myers v. State
1921 OK CR 98 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1910 OK CR 35, 106 P. 652, 3 Okla. Crim. 440, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-shawnee-v-landon-oklacrimapp-1910.