Ryan v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Ryan v. District of Columbia

48 App. D.C. 179, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2375

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 1918

DocketNos. 3173 and 3174

StatusPublished

This text of 48 App. D.C. 179 (Ryan v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ryan v. District of Columbia, 48 App. D.C. 179, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2375 (D.C. Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

While several questions are raised in the assignments of error, the cases may be quite summarily disposed of. Paragraph 32 of section 7, article IV., of the police regulations of July 31, 1915, provide that the fact that a “public cab or hack displays a device to. indicate that such cab or hack is not engaged shall not of itself be considered as soliciting patronage.” It therefore becomes unnecessary for us to determine what deductions in the Lempkie case the trial court would have been justified in drawing from the fact that a “for hire” sign was being displayed at the time of arrest, since the regulations specifically cover this point.

Does it necessarily follow that, because a hackman places his vehicle at the curb near a hotel, he is seeking employment ? It is quite possible that such is his purpose, but it is equally possible that he is waiting for a passenger who already has engaged his services. This is a criminal charge, and the rules of evidence relating to criminal prosecutions obtain. Measured [181]*181by those rules, we think it quite clear that the convictions may not stand.

The judgments must be reversed, with costs. Reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

While several questions are raised in the assignments of error, the cases may be quite summarily disposed of. Paragraph 32 of section 7, article IV., of the police regulations of July 31, 1915, provide that the fact that a “public cab or hack displays a device to. indicate that such cab or hack is not engaged shall not of itself be considered as soliciting patronage.” It therefore becomes unnecessary for us to determine what deductions in the Lempkie case the trial court would have been justified in drawing from the fact that a “for hire” sign was being displayed at the time of arrest, since the regulations specifically cover this point.

Does it necessarily follow that, because a hackman places his vehicle at the curb near a hotel, he is seeking employment ? It is quite possible that such is his purpose, but it is equally possible that he is waiting for a passenger who already has engaged his services. This is a criminal charge, and the rules of evidence relating to criminal prosecutions obtain. Measured [181]*181by those rules, we think it quite clear that the convictions may not stand.

The judgments must be reversed, with costs. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 App. D.C. 179, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-1918.