
    Commonwealth v. Curtis, Appellant.
    
      Municipalities — Ordinances—Police regulations — Parades and meetings — Class legislation — Discrimination.
    A municipality, under its general police power, has a right to enact an ordinance forbidding street parades and meetings unless written notice of the object, time, place and route of the parade or meeting shall be given to the proper city authorities, and authorizing such authorities to designate the route of the parade, and portions of streets to be occupied; provided that such ordinance does not involve class legislation.
    Argued May 8, 1913.
    Appeal, No. 201, April T., 1913, by defendant, from order of County Court, Allegheny Co., No. 731, of 1912, affirming judgment of police magistrate in case of Commonwealth et al. v. F. A. Curtis et al.
    Before Rige, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Ordady, Head and Porter, JJ.
    Affirmed,
    
      October 13, 1913:
    Appeal from judgment of police magistrate.
    From the record it appeared that the defendant had been convicted before the magistrate of holding a public meeting in violation of a city ordinance.
    The material portion of the ordinance in question was as follows:
    “ That all street parades, processions and street assemblages or meetings occupying, marching or assembling upon any highway, street, lane, alley, wharf or public square of the city of Pittsburg, to the interference, interruption or exclusion of other citizens in their legal rights in the use thereof are forbidden, unless written notice of the character, time, place and route of such procession or parade, and the names of the officers of the same, be given by the chief officer thereof, not less than twenty-four hours previous to its forming, to the Superintendent of the Bureau of Police; and in case of assemblages or meetings, twenty-four hours’ notice of the object, time and place of such assemblages or meetings shall be given to said superintendent by the person or persons making the application for the permit, as hereinafter provided.”
    The court of common pleas affirmed the judgment.
    
      Error assigned was in affirming the judgment.
    
      Jacob Margolis, for appellants.
    
      C. A. O’Brien, city solicitor, with him B. J. Jarrett, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Head, J.,

This is a companion appeal with the one we have just disposed of, Commonwealth v. Mervis, ante, p. 178, in which we have filed an opinion. The present defendants were convicted of the violation of an ordinance of the city of Pittsburg of the same general scope and character with the one considered in the former appeal with this marked difference: The later ordinance, now under consideration, contains none of the exceptions which vitiate the earlier one. As a consequence the present appellants have no other ground upon which to justify a reversal of the judgment than the general ones which in the former appeal were held to be unsound. We need not further consider them. The learned court below was therefore right in affirming the judgment of the magistrate. The assignments of error are overruled.

Judgment affirmed.  