Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-01-06
The Police Court Building n Nuisance.



In the Police Court this morning, before
The ordinary business commenced. Judge
snen made a decision I'm The case Of the
Board OF Health against Mrs. Kimmell. pro-
prietOr OF the building in which the Police
Court is held. who was charged with main
tanning nuisance injurious 70 health by
suffering this building 10 remain in a tilapi-
dated state. The decision OF J udge Smell FIRST
sets forth the facts as follows:
s'Iihe UIsif6f SfcCeS IS hlIHIeY-This was an
information charging a nuisance injurious
TO health. and at common law. II consists.
rs charged, of n brick house and premises
occupied as Police Court, the house having
1eaky roof. damp walls, without proper ven
tflatiOn. with stagnant water in the base
ment and wells. with insufficient water sup
ply and drain pipe for the water closets. and
uTinalS with defective drainage thereby
rendering the building unit for human hab-
ffation. to the great damage and common
nuisance OF all the good citizens OF the United
States sc. Sufficient evidence was Offered
10 show that the premises in question are
entirely unsuitable for the purposes 20
which they are devoted; and from their bal
veD tIlatiOP, defective drainage, stagnant
water, damp walls, leaky roof and other
causes. arising out of the unsuitable charac-
Ter of the building TO the uses 10 which it is
applied. they have become and are a nui-
sance-bOth injurious To health and COM
mon nuisance-and that this condition had
existed for months prior TO the filing this in
formation. IL appeared that the premises
were leased by the defendant on the 2iSt OF
june. 1870, for their present uses. for peTiOi
OF hve years, at an annual rent Of twelve
hundred dollars; thet the tenants were to
make all ordinary repairs, DIES tTuction by
IRE excepted; that there had been no con-
tract between the parties since the expiTa-
ton OF the term. June p, 1875; that since
that time the tenancy had been subject To-
The provisions Of the statute Of 1864, relating
10 tenants at will and suffrance, and might
nave been terminated by thirty days notice
20 the tenants TO Quit. IL also appeared that
The premises had been inspected by the
Board OF Health, and upon the report OF an
inspector declared 10 be in such a sanitary
condition as TO constitute nuisance inju-
riOus 10 health; that prior to the commence
nent OF this proceeding the Defendant hal
been duly notified of the action of the Board
Of Health, and Of the condition of the prem
tses and had been ordered TO abate the nui-
sanees complained OF. 1t did not appear
that there had been any compliance with
such notice. or any abatement Of the nut
raneeS other than some repairs upon the
reof. 1t appeared that since the said notice
70 abate the nuisance the defendant had col
leeted rent for the months Of October and
November. and had regularly received the
rent monthly since June p, 1875"
Numerous authorities are quoted as 20
what constitutes nuisance, and cases cited
and the decision concludes as follows: The
result of the cases seems To- be that il the de-
PENDANT has participated negligeatly or ae-
lively in the misfeasance or nonfeasance
which has created or continued this nuis-
ance she is liable as principal in the mis-
demeanOr charged. But though the court
mas come TO this conclusion II is not deemed
necessary 10 proceed TO nn3l judgment
n this time; and reasonable OppOrtu-
nifty will be given for the removal of the
evils complained Of but il not attended 10.
Hpon motion OF the prosecutor, the court will
FEEL called upon 10 render judgment. Tue
ease may now be continued until the next
term"
Al the conclusion Of the reading OF the de-
cisiOn Mr.. ". z. Bell. counsel for defendant,
stated that without any disrespect 10 the
court he would advise his client tOaffix no.
lice TO the door OF the Court to vacate.
The Court stated that could be done, as 10
was their privilege. The Court had done It's
duty.