Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-02-06
THE SUNDAY Law.
,HawH neeisfon of Iudxe am


TEE SUNDAY ORDINANCE OF THE CORPORA
rIoN NOT A LAw-APorHEcARIEs HAVE THE
HIsHT TO SELL ARTICLES OTHER THAN MEpI-
ClNEs ON SUNDAYS. "a
Judge Smell gave the following decision this
morning in the case OF District Of Columbia ass
ID. j. Taulman, which has been pep.s.-.., no. sovse-
time in the Police Court, De- ndant is CHARGED
with violation Of the Sunday law, by selling as
an aR1theeaay articles for profit which we're not
based upon An ordinance, appearing in the pub
lished ordinances Of the ed Council, A. d. 1884.
The facts to establish the offence were sufficient
defence, that this ordinance was never passed
in conformity to the requisstions OF law and is
not entitled to be recognized and enforced in
the courts. Il is to be Observed, that as printed,
IT appears without date, or approval, and in this
differs from all other ordinances, a. they stand
IN the same volume Of ordinances for that year.
By reference to the charter Of the city of Wash
or acts, passed by the two boards shall be
sent to the mayor for his appreciation,
and, when approved by him, shall be obligatory
or 'a act g sent to
return the same within five days, with his rea-
sons in writing therefore; and If two thirds Of
both boards ON reconsideration thereof
agree to pass the same, IL shall be in force in
ike manner as il he had approved it; but if the
two boards shall, by their Adjournment, prevent
its return, the same shall not be obdgatory.'
See charter title councils, Webbs digest, page
4s2. An ordinance, after passing both boards,
must be sent to the, mayor and approved by
him, OF, if not approved, returned with mis- OBJ
sesv Ss ne ys SsS Of ese
s ss 4 ssss%e so Sbigass,y This ordinance
The record shows the signature of he DresIsSs,
OF both boards, but no signatur Of the MAYOR
There rs no evidence that II was returned 6y
the mayor with his objections IN writing. and
passed BY the boards by the requisite two tAirds
vote and thus become obligatory. It could NOT
have become law in any other mode. No
paro! evidence has been offered or explanation
gwen in any way showing that the terms of the
charter in respect to the passage of ordinances
nave been complied with, and it Is more than
dontqll whether parol evidence Of approval
new and excellent treatise on municipal corpor-
atoms, p rs sec. 2f7, lays II down that ain the
aesence OF record evidence of the passage of an
ordnance, IT is not competent 20 establish its
inge'n vs.. Ludlow, Metcalf's Rep, (Ken.) p.
Another point has been made in this case that
this ordinance II IL ever had aBy legal effect has
been abrogated 50 far as apothecariee and drug
gists are.concerned by a Joint resolution Of the
10Th c1unciEapproted Nay 49,, 1858. The
be ,swfui for any apothecary or druggist to sell
on any day Of the week, any article embraced
in the wdteria nedica, or any article not pro-
1p ts sy an apofeecsres or druggists license
reference is made TO an act passed Deem
Der 2, 1864, in relation to apOthecaries and
ufueglss, and the same is declared to be
repealed. No act of the date or title an
pears in the acts 1864, during the month
OF december, or ether month Of same wear.
1t has not been shewn that the articles CHARGED
to have been sold are within the license of an
apothecary or druggist, and little strength to
the tefendants ease is furnished by this resolu-
ton Subsequent statutes, clearly repugnant
may repeal former ones, according to the we'll,
known maxim: " Leges posteriores priores contra
rios Arrogant" But this resolution is too indefi-
Mite and uncertain to entitle Ii to this effect and
the case is therefore dismissed upon the ground
that there is no proper proof that the ordinance
on " hich the information rests can become OBJ
ligatory, not having been approved by the
mayor, as the charter requires