55 Ga. App. 123 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1936
Lead Opinion
Coleman was convicted, in tbe recorder’s court of the City of Griffin, of a violation of section 1 of an ordinance of said city which reads as follows: “That the practice of distributing either by hand or otherwise circulars, handbooks, adver
At the trial in the recorder’s court, Paul Slaton, a citizen of Griffin, testified that he knew Mr. Coleman and saw him in Griffin on March 15, and that Mr. Coleman gave him a yellow card and asked him if he did not want to buy a book. Mr. Slaton told him that he did not want to read the card and he did not want to buy a book, and then Mr. Coleman gave Mr. Slaton a radio slip. The yellow card was introduced in evidence. It read as follows: “The newspapers have had much to say about loyalty. The Associated Press, however, declines to publish the truth regarding this issue. Every fair-minded person should want to know the true facts. I would like to leave with you some booklets which discuss problems affecting you. New political methods are everywhere. Dictators grab control of the governments and make special laws. How can you be loyal to all and still be true to God? The answers in these booklets will help you, because there is no dodging or side-stepping the issue, but straightforward Bible answers, which is what you need and want. These three booklets please read carefully, and by contributing, say, ten cents, you will make it possible, to print more of these which can be placed in the hands of other persons desiring truth.” After the admission of this evidence, the defendant made a statement admitting that he did not obtain from the City of Griffin a permit to distribute circulars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind, and that at the time he was arrested he was distributing circulars, handbooks, advertising matter, or literature within the City of Griffin. He further stated that he did not ask for a permit from the City of Griffin, because he was sent by Jehovah to do His work, and that His law is supreme and above every human law, and to apply for a permit to do His work would be an act of disobedience to His commandment and it would be an insult to Almighty God. A copy in full of said statement is as follows: “I admit that I did not obtain from the city manager of the City of Griffin a permit
The defendant contends that “The ordinance involved does not apply to the work of this defendant, for the following reasons: 1. That the act complained of, and for which defendant was arrested, was done in obedience to the mandate of the Most High God, Jehovah, the Creator of the universe, whose laws and commands are superior to all human laws, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 3. That to apply said ordinance to the work of this defendant brings it into conflict with the provisions of the constitution of this State, guaranteeing freedom of worship in accordance with the dictates of conscience; and further brings said ordinance into conflict with the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, providing that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. 3. That the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that ‘This is a Christian nation,’ and therefore the nation and all States, counties, and municipalities are estopped and precluded from interfering with or regulating the presentation of a Christian message to the people.”
A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. The breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime in this case was knowingly done, and-therefore the crime was knowingly committed. Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law. That defense of the accused in this ease, which is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted, is not meritorious. It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only. There should' be no restraint on the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of the conscience. No external authority should be allowed to place itself between the finite being and the Infinite when the former is seeking to render homage that is due, and in a mode which commends itself to his conscience and judgment as being suitable for him to render, and ^acceptable to its object. % Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 968. But, ’“Religious liberty does not include the -right to introduce and carry out every scheme or purpose which persons see fit to claim as a part of their religious system. No one can stretch his liberty so as to interfere with that of his neighbor, or violate police regulations or the penal laws of the land, enacted for the good order and general welfare of all the people. Liberty founded by the fathers was not license unrestrained by law.” McMaster v.
Judgment affirmed.
Rehearing
on rehearing.
Counsel who represent the plaintiff in error on the rehearing in their brief very frankly state that "the truth is that counsel who drew the petition for certiorari and first presented the case in this court had in mind the religious objections which he strenuously urged. The court has held that these objections, to the constitutionality of the ordinance were not good. But if, unwittingly perhaps, counsel did present a good secular objection to the constitutionality of the ordinance, then the least the court can do is to enforce that objection to keep a man from going to jail for a crime he did not commit.” (Italics ours.) The italicized part of counsel’s statement is the same construction that this court put upon the petition for certiorari; that is that the objections urged by the plaintiff in error were the religious objections, and did not go to the question that the discretion given by the ordinance to the city manager of Griffin was so arbitary and uncontrolled that it was a violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States. The relevant parts of the petition for certiorari, which constitute the only record before this court of the proceedings in the trial court, are as follows: “4. The ordinance should not be applied to the work of this defendant, because to so apply it brings it in conflict with the provisions of the 14th amendment of the United States constitution, which provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 5. Petitioner shows that all questions set forth herein and -assigned as error were insisted upon at the trial of said cause before the recorder.” This charge as to the unconstitutionality of the ordinance, failing to state wherein the ordinance violates the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States, is too indefinite to invoke any ruling upon the constitutionality of the ordinance. Jordan v. State, 173 Ga. 857, (159 S. E. 335);
Judgment adhered to-.
