Defendant was convicted in the District Court of violating city ordinance prohibiting engaging in business on a public sidewalk where the operation impeded the public.
Defendant appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. Certiorari was granted.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Term “operation” in ordinance did not include bystanders or spectators;
- Even if term “operation” in ordinance was ambiguous, court was required to construe it narrowly to include only the area; and
- Defendant’s conduct was insufficient to support conviction for violation of ordinance.