The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-07-31
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE
BOARD OF HEALTH,

BOARD OF HEALTH.
Tho New York Fcrtilixer Company Asks
an Injunction Against tho Corpora
tion-Decision Reserved.
In pursuance Of an order granted on Tuesday
last to show cause why an Injunction should not
issue against the Mayor, Aldermen and Common
atty to restrain them from interfering with the
business Of the New York Fertilizer Manufacturing
Company, foot of West Fortieth street. North
River, MIR. Prentice appeared in the Supreme
Court yesterday, before Judge Pratt on behalf Of
the Board Of Health, who have stopped the bust.
ness Of the company in question as q nuisance.
Mr.. Wardell and Mr.. Vanderpoel appeared for
the company.
Mr.. Wardell read q long statement containing
the arguments and allegations on behalf Of the
company.
They say they have acquired from the lessee OF
the pier the right to move their there. That
they take blood every DAY fresh and sweet from
animals killed that day, put il into steam and air.
tight tanks and dry it perfectly in few hours and
perfectly free from 0dor, and BY peculiar process
all gases and 0dors created during the drying are
consumed
Judge Pratt asked whether the Board of Health
had decided the business to be nuisance.
Mr.. Prentice said they had. The plaintins ap.
pied for permit In June, and the Board refused
it ana sent them an order to remove the business
as O nuisance, detrimental to health.
Mr.. Wardel said the Board were ignorant OF the
plaintins business, for they ground their order on
statements that the plaintiffs use chemicals ana
boil ofial, which are Untrue.
Mr.. Prentice said the Board HAD denied permit,
gonquin is itself 4 nuisance. The company were
asking ior an Injunction after twelve hours no
Mr.. vanderpoel referred to sections OF the law Of
1887 to prove that eight days. notice need not be
Mr.. wardell asked for an injunction on the
ground that the interference with their business
Is malicious. Seven Of their men were arrested on
an untrue allegation that they were boiling offal:
three for storing oiral on the vessel which was
untrue and one e, for S driving cart Of perfectly
Board prevents the carrying on of the business
within the city limits, and orders the removal Of
Every day that the business is discontinued they
lose $500; and they have ss4,ooO invested in ths
Chase, President Of the company and four or 1ve
residents OF the neighborhood. who hold the
manufacture not to be u nuisance.
Mr.. Prentice, in reply said the only point at is.
sue was whether the Algonquin should be removed
from the dock, and the main question was whether
could be restrained in. its efforts to protect
the general health 1t was mere nonsense
tanks; there must be "'' some escape for
the vapors or moisture. aud though those
oIensiveness. those where it was occasionally car
ried were more sensitive. lie claimed however,
their business was one requiring Permit Il i in.
volved directly the collection and storing OF animal
shoWn hv tha naiuts on nc Snar tns Ma
of tho b,isiness wtbomt narmtt no ,n wvraos
violation OF the sanitary code in ITSELF But,
orSar of tho poar% anS The ~ ~t. -, al" . tne
spector that it was positive nuisance He
on the ns,ntiYs and the proceenoa oa tho snsr4
before ne order was served Ha ns " reah e %
Sayt Of Dr. stephen smith, that the material used
and tSat ntienave aases escsmea aSSd ~
visit to tho hulk hid Clothing Eecame so satnrataS
WITH tho odor &c 70 retsn snr," Iov
that he Ia infnrmad rnat ,ha b0 nSaSeo
cmSed IN snoctnrs nr TnanHior mn nav ,,s,, IA
snadavit: ''''
no,nt was scarceIv Worth wSiia II the ov W o
Was whether this was nn,sance Il mnst Se tried
r. Sowever the pnarS oS H.o,tr ha% th So n ,rU.
claimed IL was onjv npestnn wnathsr tno Ro"rd
hsd naa, rsurior ~ n-ocaacin~a u yae Soatx t
See that the Hoard had acted on anv evidence IN
TINS case Sor,,oa -st.r-.o % .,. o.r.,so. =, r.,
spector Javne and ndScd that if anvthin% fnrther
mrnSnca SY " e,Tow r. ,1n 'vs r no,T ve ne wU
w mm 1 ah p ~ hnJ IL, VIZ si innu On fth
statute. and called Attention to the fact that thew
had NOT altar service oS the nrder asked accordn%
to the law anv hearing for a mnaiacaton or revn.
cation of fhe order fr there were an imnend,no
pestiience they need not even rive such hearing
but might remove IL at once. This was a nuisance
within NOT onlv the common law. hut the very
words of the statute.
Mr. 20 sas the tne Of
nuisance decided By a Board two OF whose MEM
bcrs had sworn It was a nuisance Dr. Stephen
months, when in fact the plaintirs had only had
them three months. and admitted that as con-
Quoted by their predecessors there had been ofen-
Company 1t had been decided that not every
ofYensive business was nuisance. plaintiffs were
pursuing lawful business, as much SO as the gas
decided that o health ofnoer must show facts