The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-04-28

POLICE CoURT.-Yesterday morning
quite a number of our best and most
influential citizens put in their appear
ance before Judge Good, and all came on
victors, or virtually victors in the race
They had all been violating the ordl-
nance framed to prevent the obstruc-
ton of the streets and sidewalks, but
owing to the looseness with which the
charges in each case were drawn, the
legal talent of the city which had been
employed succeeded in getting them
clear.
The first case was that of Mr.. W. NJ.
Nicbol, dealer in notions, who wBs
charged with having boxes piled up on
the sidewalk In front of his store,
thereby obstructing the passage. The
evidence unfortunately proved that the
the street. Therefore Mr.. Nichol wnB
adjudged not guilty of the ohense as
charged and the case dismissed.
Messrs. Thomas d Sturgeon, dry
goods merchants, came next in order.
These gentlemen were not guile SO 10r-
tunate as Mr.. Nichol. 1t was testified
that while the greater portion OF their
boxes were in the street, few tnches
rested upon the curb stone. No skill
iul lawyer handled this case, and there
fore a fne of one dollar and costs was
imposed. The fine was, however, sub
sequently RENTED.
The third party WAS Mr.. Jas. @. Orr,
carpet dealer; the case against whom
was also dismissed, because the par
ticular box which il was claimed OBJ
structed the sidewalk in front OF his
store, did not lie on the sidewalk but
outside of the gutter. There was an
other box containing roll Of oil cloth
standing on the pavement as sign but
! as that didn't take up much room, 1t
didn't matter.
Then came the trial of Eisman & Ar
mold, dealers in ready made clothing.
These gentlemen had complied with a
notice TO remove boxes from the side
walk in front of their store, by piling
them outside of the gutter. The charge
of obstructing the sidewalk Gould not
therefore be sustained, and the. case was
| dismissed.
The last and most interesting OF
these cases was that of the city oil
! Wheeling against DR.. Z. A. HildrethJ
| for obstructiDg the sidewalk, on Mon
roe street, between Fourth and Firm
streets. IL appeared that the DIR. Is
putting up "A new building in the local
! ity mentioned, and desiring to build
an area wall bias excavated some three
or four feet into the sidewalk. This II
was commended by the counsel for the
city, @. W. Jt nerS, Esq, brought MIN
clearly within the provisions OF the or
dinance made and provided. IL WAS
also shown that the DR.. had consulted
Street Commissioner Clark before ma
King The excavation, and had been
warned by him not 10 make II. Evil
deuce was offered to show that then
the DIR. had consulted the Mayor OF the
city in regard to the matter, and had
been informed by that gentleman that
he knew of no objections to his making
the excavation. But the Mayor hun
self being put upon the stand, testified
that he had met DR.. Hildreth casually
upon the street and had had some con-
VersatiOn with him in regard TO the
matter under consideration. The exact
scope or purpOrt of the conversation he
did not TecOllect, but did not con-
slider the Mayor entitled TO authorize
any citizen to dig into the sidewalk.
! The only proper authorizations could
come from the Council; and as the Doc
tor had already filed his petition TO
Council for authority, he would advise
that the case be continued until it could
| be seen what course Council would
pursue in allowing citizens TO make e6-
cAvAtions In the sidewalk for building
/ purposes.
The Court stated that under the Pc
cuIiar circumstances of the case and
with i view OF permitting the defendant
10 test the question involved in the
prosecution, he would adjourn the case
until after the meeting of Council Tues
day night.