The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1866-01-19
THE COURTS.

MAYORS COURT. The watch report TWENTY-FIVE lamps
out IN different portions of the city. Two Migrants were
furnished lodgings at the watch house. The case ofa
L. Shipp, charged with forgery, was postponed until to-
day. A.. Thrift, under an order of the Board of Health.
Us. Charles Harris, action for Sc so, one third payment
for a fence erected by said Thrift, by order of the Board of
Health across Bonsars alley. This case was tried
rather as a test question, than for amount involved. The
defendant denied the authority Of the Board of Health,
to cause said fence to be erected, and therefore refused TO
pay the bill 1t appears from the evidence adduced that
last August the Board of Health ordered the alley on
Main street, known as Bonsals lane, to be closed as a
matter of public necessity, two Of the coterminous ten
ants ofthe neighboring pr. perty agreeing toit. The third,
Charles Harris protested in the following written notice
to the Board Of Health, viz
NORFOLK, Va. Aug 10th, 1865.
TO the Board Of Health Of The City Of Norfok, Va,
GENTLEMEN Within the last five or six days, MI. J. /.
B~loodgood has under your orders, as he informs me,
erected wooden fences across the ends Of the eight foot
lane, running between his property On the west, aud Mr.,
W. Il. Taylors, and my property on the east. This lane
is a private lane, the exclusive use of which belongs in
common to Mr.. Bloodgood, Mr.. Taylor and myself Mr..
B~loodgood has placed a narrow gate in the South fence,
which he keeps closed day and night, but if that cate
were kept open during the day, the lane could not be used
by myself and customers or my tenants, Or for the passage
Of wheelbarrows and hand carts as a way to and from
my bakery, for which purpose it has been used for many
years. Even if there were a similar narrow gate in the
northern fence, and both gates were to be kept open
during the day, that arrangement would be very objec-
tionable for reasons which it would take too much time
Ii epdCt W Htlt uctdiis
Lam now cut off from all use of the lane in question, by
the erection of the fences referred to, and l therefore now
protest against the erection of those fences, and against
there being allowed to stand any niger across the ends,
or other part or parts Of the lane IN question,
l am told that the object in erecting the fences, is to
prevent the country people, (attending market and
others from committing nuisances in the lane,
If you will reflect a moment, / think you
will agree with me in the opinion that
thi. object cannot Justify you in doing any thing, or or
dering anything to be done, that would operate to pre-
vent me from exercising any of my rights more parti-
cularly when the object can be effected in another mode,
and to which | should have no objection. 1t is we'll
known that the ~nuisances complained ola being com
mitted in the lane, are committed in the night between
the hours of about 10 p. NJ, and 4 A. M. A very simple AZ
rangement between Mr.. B~loodgood, Mr.. Taylor and my
self, could abate the nuisances. / arn perfectly willing,
and / have no doubt MI. Taylor would be, to permit Mr..
Bloodgood tp erect proper gates, such as might be agreed
on. nut no fencesL across the end of the lane, under
certain stipulations and conditions as to the hours Of
their being open and shut SC, as might pc agreed on by
Mr.. Bloodgood, Mr. Taylor and myself. Mr.. ~Bloodgood
himself suggested to me some years before the commence
ment of the late war, this plan of placing gates across the
end of the lane, 10 which ] did nat object, but for some
reason unknown 10 me, the plan was not carried out.
Whilst it may be within the province Of the Board of
Health TO make regulations TO secure the cleanliness in
the streets and lanes of the city, aud thereby promote the
health Of tie public, yet | cannot admit the right in
said board to issue orders, or make regulations that will
prevent the unrestricted enjoyment by myself or my
tenants of any rights of property in the lane referred to,
and | do therefore most respectfully protest against the
same, and request the hoard to revoke said orders.
remain very Respectfully
Your 0bedient Servant,
CHAs. HARRIS.
NORFOLK, Aug. 10Th, 1866.
The foregoing document and addressed TO the Board OF
Health, of the City of Norfolk, Va, and signed by Mr..
Charles Harris, is a full and true copy OF the original
which | this day at the request of Mr.. Harris, placed in
the hands of j. ], ~Bloodgood Esq President of the Board
of Health, with artquest that he would lay the same
before the Board.
Personally appeared before me this day A. B Cooke,
and made oath that the above is a true copy OF the notice
TO J. I. Bloodgood, President OF the Board OF
Health.
Aug. 10Th, 1866.
The defendant, Nj. Harris, in addition TO the above
protest sent the Board of Health, submitted to the Court
the following bill of exceptions, viz:
1st | DENY the right of the Board to shut me out from
usine my own lane, and then endeavoring to make me
nav the costs OF their own wrongful acts, and ! call on
them to show their power to entirely shut up any mans
lane or alley. even with the object of preventing nui-
sances.
ID. Even admitting, momentarily, for arguments sake,
that they have the power to entirely close mp any mans
lane, for the purpose of preventing nuisances, l. In that
case, deny they then could rightfully do so, until they
should first notify the owner, or owners, to cleanse the
lane and keep it clean; and on finding their notification
was not attended to, they might then, perhaps, be JUST
fed in closing the lane. But they did not notify me in
the case in question.
Sd. Their proper and legal course would have been, on
finding their notification not attended to, TO nave directed
the employment of persons to keep the lane Clean, and
then to have assessed the owners OF the land with the ex-
penses. Under no circumstances, were they Justinedln
up a tboroughfare, whether public er private, for
the object in view, when that object could be attained IN
a Ie0ai mode, and at no cost to the city.
4th. Had l paid their bill against me, / should have
thereby admitted their right to shut me out entirely
from the use of my own property, and that too forever;
for they have run a dead fence, without any gate in It,
across one end of the lane, and it they have a right to
keen It there five months, they have the right to keep 1t
ALWAYS there. My payment OF the bill would be an ac-
acknowledgement of this right, and would preclude me rom
ever asserting my unquestionable and indefsasible rights
In the lane. u~
hi. Even irthe Board had the proper legal authority
10 erect these fences, ! could properly refuse 10 pay ther
hill because there is no record Oh Their DOCKS oil theiror-
der directing the fences to be built -
6,b' Very eminent legal counsel have told me that
sbouid be perfectly justified at law, by going az any tne
I pIeased. with an axe or other instrument, and destroy
or remove these fences, as they are a Standing hespdssm
nv rights and tUere placed there 10itiom any hgdt da-
thorty.
iii. If the Board has the right, on the pretext alleged:
to close up the lane in question, which Is private, aDo
owned and used in common by three persons, they nave
the same right to entirely obstruet and completely close
up forever, o n the same pretext, any mans lane leauine
exclusively to his own back yard, and not enjoyed
common with others; and if it were the only outlet 70
that ward. the Board could compel him and hundreds OF
citizens similarly situated, to carry all their wood, coal,
marketing, furniture, and kitchen garbage, through their
front doors. and that too forever. This view OF the SUD
-. ..IxufA ~ -hirh