Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-01-18
""So WoRKs - or PUBIlc
Their Right to -
proper BusIs Ate and EnrJrce

=, na;nsss a. >.css4i that last week the eases |
oaTd ofpui -.sre board of public works ami |
or iniunl ,<ss works agt. Dianese-appficauons |
~ ~ .evn TO prevent the board from remov-
os -on buildings alleged to be unsafe, and |
freTent Danese from completing the same
GRE argued by Judge Fisher and MT. J. n
,1iver, for Dainese, and MIR. w. A. Cook, for |
the board of public works, and that on Saturday
Judge Wylie decided the case sustaining the .
setien Of the board. The case is very imper-
the new regulations, and therefore We = I'VE
place to the opinion of Judge Wylie in fuj'
OPINION or JUDGE wYLIE.
r. Ddinest rs. The Board Of Public W orr, anil
Adolf Class, Inspector Of Public BIZ iIdiaos.
The Board Of Public Works rs. r. Dai assF.
Mr.. Dainese, in September last, . pplied to Mt.
Cluss, the inspectorof buildings, for permit to
high, upon lot of land own Il by him in the
eastern part of the city, and obtained the per
nit, Notwithstanding the IT, ,rty-third section of
Z" No wooden building 'aereafter erected shall
exceed the height OF twJ stories up to the Fat OF
the roof" The privif eye granted in this case
was grained IN consef iuence Of REPRESENTATION
tract for buiidiD had been made before
the building regulations were actually
promnigated, ar though subsequently to their
adoption by u g board. 1 do not propose Mt
present to caD in question the power of the in
speetor 10 II sue such a permit u Dainese
although itynay well be doubted. Having Oh
tanned ms permit Dainese proceeded to erect
ms buidip Is, using for the purpose, lot Of old
lumber W lich he had bought from the govern
inelt AT the sale of the barracks at Fort Lincoln.
j ne n . me was up and the roof was on, when
the atf entiOn of the board of public works and
OF the inspector of public buildings was allied TO
u as dangerous structure and public mis-
aso; by a communication from a memher OF the
boz I'd of health. Many of the neighbors SUISSE
qr.entiy presented protest against its continu-
ance as building disgrsceful in appearance,
End in consequence OF the miserable quality of
the materials used, and the defects in the mode
OF its construction, liable soon TO tumble down,
causing loss Of or imminent danger elife. The
inspector and board of public works having ex-
amined the building came to the conclusion
that IL was a dangerous nuisance, and ought
not to be allowed to stand, and gave notice
fas that they required its @
should themselves order il TO be taken down.
Dainese thereupon fled his bill praying an in
junction to restrain the board and the inspector
from carrying their purpose into effect, and
averring that he had obtained a lawful permit
to erect the buildings, and that they had been
constructed IN skiilful and substantial man
ner. and of good materials The usual restrain
ing order was thereupon made by the court, and
day fixed for hearing the application for in
junction as prayed for in the bin. In the mean
time Dainete was going on diligently with the
work upon his houses The board then filed a
counter bill to have Dainese restrained from
proceeding further with his work until the mat
ter in controversy could be heard and deter
mined.
Both cases are now here for discussion upon
the pleading. exhibits. and aflidayits; but the
decision to he made in the first case will deter
mine the other. The averments of Dainese's
bill Is to the quality of the materials used and
efficiency Of the structure are fatty contra
dcted by tho e of the defendants answer, and
each side has fortified itself with numerous aida
Wits. The weight of authority, however, appears
to PrepOnderate very heavily on the side OF the
corporate authorities; and l am entirely salts
fed that the structures in question, if allowed to
to be completed, would be not only s'bur-
tsgue' and disgrace to the city, but danger
Ous nuisance to the public; and that such is
their character at this time. But whether these
houses be public and dangerous nuisance or
not. the court cannot interfere to restrain. By
iTjabciioR, the corporate authorities from follow
ing their own Judgment on the subject, should
they choose to take the risk of an action for
damages at law. 1t is a wen settled rule of law.
that court oil equity except I'm very few Pc
culiar eases) does not interfere to restrain the
commission of an act of trespass, but leaves the
party Ia his action at law tor damages. In Hart
VS.. Albany, Wen, 5s1, compliments had built
a floating stOrehouse in the basin, which the
corporation threatened to remove. The Chan
ceilor granted temporary injunction, which he
subsequently dissolved; and 1t was held by the
court of errors that the injunction had been
properly dissolved, because the compliments
could obtain ample compensation for the tres
press, should 1t be committed, in an action at
This general rule. if it il ever to be applied, is
OF peculiar Importance a. respects the acts of a
public oficer such As the Inspector OF buildings
or a board Of public works in a large city. No
man has the right TO say he viii do as he pleases
with his own. He is obliged ~ law so to use his
TO endanger or modest the rights of his neigh
bors. There exists, probably, no large town or
city in Christendom where regulations pre-
scribing the materials and methods of construc-
ton for buildings have not been adopted, from
absolute necessity. For the purpose Of en-
forcing these regulations, agents are indispen-
sable, and these agents must be clothed with
large discretion and powers Of summary action.
Is there any good reason why one man should
proceed OF his own will and in q summary wa
TO create a nuisance which will endanger the
comfort ~, u lpr
which would not equally justify some other
man to remove the offending cause in a like
summary way? In Van WOrmer va. ALBANY, IL
Wen. 2s2 the Chief Justice said 1t is right
that such power should exist somewhere. To be
exercised upon proper emergency. IL the
progress of public prosecution, the evil arising
from nuisances would seldom be avoided" And
in Renwiek VS.. Morris, 8 Hill, 62l, II was laid
down by the court that the remedy by abate-
ment of nuisances was in all respect concurrent
with that by indictment.
BY the 81 th section OF the act of Congress es-
tablshing the present government of the Dis
trict Of Columbia il is provided that the board
of public works ..shall make all necessary reg
ulations respecting the construction OF private
buildings in the District of Columbia, subject to
the supervision of the Legislative Assembly,
In pursuance Of this power that board, on the
18th Of August, 1872. adopted the building reg
ulatons now in force. These regulations pro-
vided for the appointment of an inspector of
buildings. and prescribed his duties amongst
which are that he 'shall examine all houses or
IN course OF erection. altcratlOn or
pair. as often as necessary; to see that they are
erected, constructed, altered, or repaired in ac-
cordance with the requirements of these rules;
that he Materials Ussd ore suitable for the pny-
pose, and Edt tie tcork done a subsfaHiul man
er, and is OF sufficient strength and solidity to
answer the purpose for which it was Designed"
(Sec. g. ''t shall be the duty of the inspector
Of buildings to inspect all buildings or parts OF
buildings, stagings, or other structures, being
dangerous or unsafe, on his own observation.
on the written request of any two citizens, or
upon being notified by any officer Of the Metro
pOlitan police, AMI If the same be insufficient
and dangerous he shall cause a description of
such structure, with street and number, to be
entered in the books or his department. (sec
5o) and "shall Immediately serve a notice in
writing upon the owners, agent. or other party
having interest in the said structure, requiring
the same to be made safe and secure, or re-
moved, as may he deemed necessary" And
.'upOn refusal or neglect of the owner or other
interested party, the Inspector of buildings NAV
cause such unsafe or dangerous structure to be
taken down or otherwise made safe. and the cost
and charges shall become a lien upOn the said
estate, to be collected according to law (sec.
ST.
The inspection notice TO the owner, and all
other forms thus directed. We're fully complied
with in the present instance.
The Injunction prayed for by Dainese iSre-
fused and his bill dismissed for want of iuris-
diCtOn. and the Injunction prayed for by the