Opinion
Record No. 2645.
January 18, 1943.
Present, Campbell, C.J., and Hudgins, Gregory, Browning, Eggleston and Spratley, JJ.
1. AUTOMOBILES — Reckless Driving — Questions of Law and Fact — Failure to Have Lights on Car at Night. — The question of whether or not accused was guilty of reckless driving because of his failure to have lights on his car while driving over streets of a city at a time of night when lights were required was one of fact.
2. AUTOMOBILES — Reckless Driving — Failure to Have Lights on Car at Night — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for unlawful operation of an automobile in a reckless manner in violation of a city ordinance, the only evidence relative to the charge of reckless driving was that, in an attempt to escape arrest on another charge, accused failed to have lights on his automobile at a time when lights were required.
Held: That while the evidence was meager it could not be said that it was not sufficient to sustain the verdict.
3. AUTOMOBILES — Reckless Driving — Fine within Limits Fixed by Ordinance Not Excessive Punishment — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for reckless driving in violation of a city ordinance, accused was found guilty before a civil and police justice and his punishment fixed at a fine of ten dollars. Upon appeal to the corporation court, a jury was waived and the court found the accused guilty of reckless driving and fixed his punishment at a fine of one hundred dollars and costs. It was contended that the punishment was excessive.
Held: That there was no merit in the contention of the accused, since the fine imposed was within the limits prescribed in the ordinance.
Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Charlottesville. Hon. A. D. Dabney, judge presiding.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
E. O. McCue and Paxson, Williams Fife, for the plaintiff in error.
L. W. Wood, for the defendant in error.
CASE NO. 2. RECKLESS DRIVING.
Plaintiff in error, Jesse Maughs, was tried upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of the city of Charlottesville. The warrant alleged that Maughs "in the said city did unlawfully operate an automobile in a careless and reckless manner, in violation of an ordinance of said city."
Upon his trial, had before a civil and police justice, Maughs was found guilty, as charged in the warrant, and his punishment fixed at a fine of ten dollars.
Upon an appeal to the corporation court, a jury was waived by accused and the case was submitted to the trial court for decision. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court found the accused guilty of reckless driving and fixed his punishment at a fine of $100 and costs.
The ordinance of the city relative to reckless driving within the corporate limits of the city provides:
"Any person who drives a vehicle upon a highway recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger life, limb or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving."
In the case of Maughs v. Charlottesville (Case No. 1 — Larceny) this day decided, the facts upon which the charge of reckless driving is based are fully set forth and will not be restated, except to quote the evidence of the witness T. H. Adams, relative to the charge of reckless driving.
When asked the question, "What about this reckless driving?" Adams answered:
"I do not think the speed was so great, but he did not turn his lights on. He went into Ridge Street and knew I was after him. I hollered and shot three times. It is a bad intersection and he never checked his speed. He did not have his lights on."
It is thus seen that there is no evidence of excessive speed. The only evidence relative to the charge of reckless driving is the evidence that, in an effort to escape arrest, accused failed to have lights on his automobile at a time when lights are required, to-wit, at approximately 8:30 or 9 p.m.
It is the contention of accused that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and that the punishment is excessive.
[1, 2] The question of whether or not accused was guilty of reckless driving, because of his failure to have lights on his car while driving over the city streets at a time of night when lights were required, was one of fact. While the evidence is meager, we cannot say the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.
As to the contention that the punishment is excessive, the answer is that the fine imposed is within the limits prescribed in the ordinance of the city. This being true, though we concede that it is a far cry from the fine of ten dollars imposed by the police justice to the fine of $100 imposed by the trial court, this court is not warranted in setting aside the verdict on the ground that it is excessive.
The judgment of the court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.