Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    US V Hart

    Uploaded by

    Jerahmeel Cuevas
    The defendants were found guilty of vagrancy under Act No. 519 despite having lawful means of subsistence through their trades. The court examined the legislative intent of the law and determined that having a visible livelihood is a defense against a vagrancy charge. The prosecution's interpretation that visible means of support would not be a defense under clauses 4-7 of the Act would mean that anyone found loitering in certain establishments could be charged, an overbroad result. Considering the consequences, the defendants' sole offense was gambling in a licensed saloon, which is regulated separately and not intended to be encompassed by vagrancy laws. The defendants were therefore acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US V Hart

    Uploaded by

    Jerahmeel Cuevas
    71 views2 pages
    The defendants were found guilty of vagrancy under Act No. 519 despite having lawful means of subsistence through their trades. The court examined the legislative intent of the law and determined that having a visible livelihood is a defense against a vagrancy charge. The prosecution's interpretation that visible means of support would not be a defense under clauses 4-7 of the Act would mean that anyone found loitering in certain establishments could be charged, an overbroad result. Considering the consequences, the defendants' sole offense was gambling in a licensed saloon, which is regulated separately and not intended to be encompassed by vagrancy laws. The defendants were therefore acquitted.

    Original Title

    US v Hart

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendants were found guilty of vagrancy under Act No. 519 despite having lawful means of subsistence through their trades. The court examined the legislative intent of the law and determined that having a visible livelihood is a defense against a vagrancy charge. The prosecution's interpretation that visible means of support would not be a defense under clauses 4-7 of the Act would mean that anyone found loitering in certain establishments could be charged, an overbroad result. Considering the consequences, the defendants' sole offense was gambling in a licensed saloon, which is regulated separately and not intended to be encompassed by vagrancy laws. The defendants were therefore acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    US V Hart

    Uploaded by

    Jerahmeel Cuevas
    The defendants were found guilty of vagrancy under Act No. 519 despite having lawful means of subsistence through their trades. The court examined the legislative intent of the law and determined that having a visible livelihood is a defense against a vagrancy charge. The prosecution's interpretation that visible means of support would not be a defense under clauses 4-7 of the Act would mean that anyone found loitering in certain establishments could be charged, an overbroad result. Considering the consequences, the defendants' sole offense was gambling in a licensed saloon, which is regulated separately and not intended to be encompassed by vagrancy laws. The defendants were therefore acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    US v.

    Hart

    G.R. No. L-8848 November 21, 1913

    F:

    -defendants were found guilty in the CFI on a charge of vagrancy under the provisions of Act No. 519

    -it will be noted that each of the defendants was earning a living at a lawful trade or business, quite
    sufficient to support himself in comfort

    -as provided by Section 1 of Act No. 519:

    (1) Every person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work, and
    who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling; (2) every person found loitering about
    saloons or dram shops or gambling houses, or tramping or straying through the country without visible
    means of support; (3) every person known to be a pickpocket, thief, burglar, ladrone, either by his own
    confession or by his having been convicted of either of said offenses, and having no visible or lawful
    means of support when found loitering about any gambling house, cockpit, or in any outlying barrio of a
    pueblo; (4) every idle or dissolute person or associate of known thieves or ladrones who wanders about
    the country at unusual hours of the night; (5) every idle peron who lodges in any barn, shed, outhouse,
    vessel, or place other than such as is kept for lodging purposes, without the permission of the owner or
    person entitled to the possession thereof; (6) every lewd or dissolute person who lives in and about
    houses of ill fame; (7) every common prostitute and common drunkard, is a vagrant.

    -Section 1 of Act No. 519 is divided into seven clauses, separated by semicolons. Each clause enumerates
    a certain class of persons who, within the meaning of this statute, are to be considered as vagrants.

    -prosecution argued that as visible means of support would not be a bar to a conviction under any one
    of the last four clauses of this act, it was not the intention of the Legislature to limit the crime of
    vagrancy to those having no visible means of support because of the use of semicolon and commas.

    I:

    WoN having a livelihood is a defense against vagrancy

    H:

    -Yes

    -When the meaning of a legislative enactment is in question, it is the duty of the courts to ascertain, if
    possible, the true legislative intention, and adopt that construction of the statute which will give it
    effect. The construction finally adopted should be based upon something more substantial than the
    mere punctuation found in the printed Act. If the punctuation of the statute gives it a meaning which is
    reasonable and in apparent accord with the legislative will, it may be used as an additional argument for
    adopting the literal meaning of the words of the statute as thus punctuated. But an argument based
    upon punctuation alone is not conclusive, and the courts will not hesitate to change the punctuation
    when necessary, to give to the Act the effect intended by the Legislature, disregarding superfluous or
    incorrect punctuation marks, and inserting others where necessary.
    -A most important step in reasoning, necessary to make it sound, is to ascertain the consequences
    flowing from such a construction of the law.

    -if the prosecution’s interpretation be applied, everyone found loitering saloons or dram shops or
    gambling houses would be held liable for vagrancy

    - In the case at bar, all three of the defendants were earning a living by legitimate methods in a degree
    of comfort higher that the average. Their sole offense was gambling, which the legislature deemed
    advisable to make the subject of a penal law. The games in which they participated were apparently
    played openly, in a licensed public saloon, where the officers of the law could have entered as easily as
    did the patrons.

    -defendants acquitted

    You might also like