86 N.Y.S. 357 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1904
The lower court has upheld the contention of counsel for defendant that section 166 of thé Highway Law, as amended by chapter 625 of the Laws of 1903," providing for the registration of automobiles by their owners is unconstitutional and void and that the requirements of section 169a, that a number corresponding to the number of the certificate obtained on registering the automobile shall be conspicuously attached to the rear of the vehicle so as to be plainly visible, is inoperative and a failure to comply therewith can constitute no crime. Section 166 of the Highway Law, as so amended, provides, in substance, that every person owning an automobile or motor vehicle at the time of the enactment of the amendment, or who shall thereafter acquire one, shall within the time prescribed “ file in the office of the Secretary of State a statement containing his name and address, with a brief description of the character of such vehicle, including the name of the maker and the number of the motor vehicle, and shall pay to the Secretary of State a registra
The theory upon which this law has been declared unconstitutional is that it is class legislation and is in violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the legislation is manifest. The Legislature appreciated the danger to pedestrians and to people lawfully using the highway with vehicles drawn by animals from automobiles and motor vehicles. Many of these vehicles are capable of attaining a speed of more than a mile a minute and weigh several tons. Their speed averages approximately the speed of the different classes- of railroad trains operated by steam power.
It was essential to the safety of the traveling public that the speed of such vehicles should be regulated and limited. It is necessary that the vehicle may be readily identified to deter the operator from violating the law and the rights of Others, and to enforce the laws regulating the speed and to hold the operator responsible in cases of accident. The Legislature deemed that the best method of identifi-. cation, both as to the vehicle and the owner or operator, would be by a number on a tag conspicuously attached to the vehicle. In case of any violation of law this affords means of identification, for, from the number, the name of the owner may be readily ascertained' and through him the operator. The contention is that manufacturers and dealers, by virtue of the exception contained in section 166, are not only relieved from compliance with that section, but are at liberty to run the machines which they have in stock for sale
It follows that the order should be reversed and the matter should be remitted to the Court of Special Sessions with directions to proceed according to law.
"Van Brunt, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JT.,. concurred.
Order reversed and matter remitted to the Court of Special Sessions with directions to proceed according to law.
Sic.