People ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell

197 A.D. 225, 188 N.Y.S. 803, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7438
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 A.D. 225 (People ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell, 197 A.D. 225, 188 N.Y.S. 803, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Putnam, J.:

The Legislature had empowered the common council of Mount Vernon to enact ordinances regulating the use of public streets for holding meetings; and the ordinance clearly came within the terms of the charter. Hence public speaking upon the streets was only allowable after such leave. Without any permit from the mayor, and against his refusal thereof, a meeting could not be lawfully held. The circumstance that at the opposite street corner the Salvation Army held a meeting [228]*228that same night did not show an unjustifiable discrimination. The power to grant or withhold such permits carries with it the duty to consider public convenience and to pay regard to the liability of undue congestion, disturbance or disorder so as to interfere with the public rights to pass and repass.

Withholding permits for speaking in streets or parks, therefore, does not deny the right of free speech. (City of Buffalo v. Till, 192 App. Div. 99; People v. Pierce, 85 id. 125; Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43; 12 C. J. 954, § 479.) It follows that these relators, in mistaken assertion of their supposed rights, were actually breaking a valid ordinance; so that in its enforcement an arrest was in the lawful exercise of the police power. Even if discrimination against a political party were suspected, those who felt discriminated against could not take the law into their own hands, and, by such assemblage, defy this city ordinance. If a permit be improperly withheld, its issuance may be compelled through mandamus.

Hence the order should be reversed, and the writs of habeas corpus dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Blackmar, P. J., Rich and Jáycox, JJ., concur; Mills, J., not voting.

Order reversed and writs of habeas corpus dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Related

New York Ex Rel. Doyle v. Atwell
261 U.S. 590 (Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 A.D. 225, 188 N.Y.S. 803, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-doyle-v-atwell-nyappdiv-1921.