*1 71 past was mailed on notice October A due on
normally Salt deliverable payment September 26 4th.
October days of the due
was not made within 10 cancellation, policy called for
date. accomplished. A check exe- this was not
if post- on 7th was
cuted and mailed October
marked October and received Nation- 8 on 11th.
wide October time col-
It is obvious that policy lapsed
lisiоn the had and there was hold, coverage. the trial We court
did, payment that there waiver of was no grace,
the due date or date of policy and that
terms of the were clear by depositing
Nationwide ap- receipt
the check afer thereof on
parent basis. reinstatement ELLETT, C. J.
TUCKETT, CROCKETT, JJ., concur. municipal CITY, corporation
SALT LAKE of the State of Ray DAVISON,
Robert Defendant Respondent. Crellin, simply makes unlawful to use City Atty., O. Wallace L. .Jack languagе regardless of whether City, for Atty., Earl, Salt Lake Asst. cause breach causes or tends to plaintiff aрpellant. valid, were held If the ordinance Boyce, Young, Ronald Richard N. swearing him- punished one could be *2 respondent. and City, for Lake accidentally self if thumb he should with a hammer. ELLETT, Justice: in the Legislature was convicted The defendant We think the intended to 32-1-1, violating power Revised limit in enacting Court of Sеction the the City, regarding profane of Salt Lake nances or Ordinances obscene Court, whеre guage the District appealed He to to there is a breach situations where powеr judge the that the had no ruled The question. in
to the enact ordinance ruling judge is The trial affirmed. the VIII, City appeals pursuant to Article § Constitution, since the of the Utah J.,C. and TUCKETT and involved. of an ordinance HENRIOD, JJ., сoncur. 10-8-50, U.C.A.1953, provides Section punishment “may CROCKETT, (dissenting). Justice peace disturbing the and persons agree striking I do not down of as- city, any or lawful order of question being in as uncon- intoxication, noise, by sembly, by or clamor stitutional at the behest of profane lan- using or fighting, obscene or sought for he is to be The сonduct .” guage, power of responsible comes within the states, shall question in “It The ordinance рunish to and he abusive, any person use for be unlawful some it that under profane insulting, slanderous or menacing, might adversely it af- other circumstances the limits of Salt language within else in a man- someone fect conduct of authority to city’s ner control. outside appears that the ordinance in thе are: record The facts as disclosed City has the
goes beyond the statute. The m. that one a. Nоvember about makes an ordinance which to enact a Leary investigate Police went Offiсer progress in front fight in report was peace that disturb unlawful to in 8th 56th South West pro or of “Mel’s Store” City by оbscene one City. defendant was The did language. This it not fane do. 7g fighting. in the persons authorize both for involved agreement just peace, parties disturbing as what in and also are not the good city by using oс- order sequence and in the next events obscene what profane re- curred, language.' judge has been no trial to and there The trial in his disputed correctly ruling disputes. But it is not solve their noted this distinction response inquiry to his name wherein as he stated: give it do- and in refused anybody’s use of ing language, the оfficer so directed toward any circumstances be described these necessary to which it bеsmirch is not as irrespective obscene or whether a dis- with, pages it is not and cannot but which Q.r turbanсe involved was foul, and insult- disputed, be was any community other disturbance my judgment ing in It is the extreme. quiet ... languagе in the circum- the use of such by a very regarded stances could well my It is view that quoted the ordinancе as jury provocative tending ato breach opinion the main making “unlawful fortiori, peace, it was abusive, to use menacing, insult- “good city; order” of the ing, profane slanderous or language within *3 so, legiti- even more that there would be a the limits of City” if reasonably jury question mate as whether such applied particular case, this of guage so used be so characterized. should e., i. defendant, the conduct of the comes city gov- purposes of One of the essential within empowermеnt the authorizing of good or- preserve ernment is to statute. city. clearly This indicat- within the is It is the conduct above ed in Section 10-8-50 referred that we should be concerned with provides may: wherein it in this case. It is a basic rule of construc- . tion that a statute or ordinance should be so and the applied construed and to make constitu- city by order of the tional, possible, whenever rather than thе profane language obscene or contrary, and not to strike down unless nec- meaning The rеasonable essary.1 under- difficult for me see how phrases, lined conjunctive, used is to it serves the causes administration-of 1. 603, See Donahue Warner Bros. 1435; Reyn Pictures v. 80 S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d Distributing Corp., 2 Utah 2d Va., olds v. Milk Commission of 163 Va. 177; Flеmming Nestor, v. 363 U.S. S.E. respect for and
justice, or of
enforce-
were under such invalid and indeed be ordinance would person in
enforceable possibility that it But the
situation. other improperly apply to some circumstanсes, should be
in different He should
advantage to of the effect complain
have only if con- upon him
the ordinance him re- hold seeks to
duct for which city to
sponsible is outside
control, personally affected that he is so pow- beyond its acting
adversely
ers.2 said I have with what
In accordance justice would
above, to me seems that, by ruling under served
best be shown,
facts here question the
standing to be a trial ; that there should
nance *4 dispute as to
a determination mine). emphasis (All incident. situation, Am. see conduct or the con- 2. That a Law, Jur.2d, Sec. 122 Constitutional stitutionality on the law others, therein cited. rights authorities impairs nor unless toas he is unconstitutional shows