Majority
The information upon which defendant was tried and convicted alleges that, in transporting coal upon a truck, defendant failed to display upon the vehicle the name of the owner and the word “ coal.” These facts were proved and they constitute a violation of section 197-f of the Agriculture and Markets Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 69) which provides: “ All vehicles used in the transportation of coal or coke shall have conspicuously marked with permanent letters on the exterior of the right and left side thereof, in plain view and easily discernible, the name of the owner, together with the words coal and/or coke. The letters of the words coal and/or coke shall be at least seven inches in height and not less than one-half inch in width.”
This case was tried without a jury and appellant urges that that part of the statute which attempts to deprive him of a jury trial is unconstitutional. Section 41 provides that violation of any part of the statute constitutes a misdemeanor and section 197-j provides that any Court of Special Sessions or any Police Court having jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction to try without a jury. These sections of the statute are constitutional. (N. Y. Const, art. VI, § 18; People ex rel. Frank v. McCann, 253 N. Y. 221 , 226.)
Appellant stresses the point also that section 197-f is not applicable to interstate carriers. The parties stipulated at the trial that the coal involved in this case was loaded in Pennsylvania and transported into New York. At the time of the transportation of this coal, the statute, as amended by chapter 579 of the Laws of 1937, section 8, was in effect. It provides in part: “No provision of such sections shall apply or be construed to apply to foreign or interstate commerce, except in so far as the same may be effective pursuant to the United States Constitution and to the laws of the United States enacted pursuant hereto ” [thereto]. We have recently decided in Rueffer v. Dept. of Agriculture & Markets ( 279 N. Y. 16 , 21) that this statute shall not be construed to apply if it is in conflict with an act
The judgment should be affirmed.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hubbs, J., taking no part.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases cited
- New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann 285 U. S. 262 p. 390
- Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke 266 U. S. 570 p. 390
- People v. Maillard 192 App. Div. 201 p. 390
- People v. Ringe 197 N. Y. 143 p. 390
- Kelly v. Washington ex rel. Foss Co. 302 U. S. 1 at 7 p. 390, p. 392
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. Armburg 285 U. S. 234 at 238 p. 390, p. 392
- Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co. 265 U. S. 298 p. 390
- Simpson v. Shepard 230 U. S. 352 p. 390, p. 392
- Duncan v. Missouri 152 U. S. 377 p. 390
- Caldwell v. Texas 137 U. S. 692 p. 390
- People ex rel. Frank v. McCann 253 N. Y. 221 at 226 p. 390
- Rueffer v. Department of Agriculture & Markets 279 N. Y. 16 at 21 p. 390
- Board of Hudson River Regulating District v. Fonda, Johnstown & Gloversville Railroad 249 N. Y. 445 at 456 p. 392