The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-01-27

Yesterday in the Hastings Court Judge
Christian rendered a decision IN the case
sent M 10 his court from the court below
in reference 10 parties who were GDed ~
for violation of the city ordinance in fail
ing 10 clean snow from sidewalk. The de-
ci,ion Ia interesting 10 every citizen, ana
reverses the judgment OF Police-JGsllce
Richardson.
Judge Christian says
This is an appeal from judgment rem
dered by the Police Justice OF this city I'M
posing fine OF two dollars on the appellant
foy an alleged violation OF section ~ OF
chapter "a OF the City Ordinances, which
provides as follows:
S52. "The tenant, occupant, and in case
there shall be no tenant, tie owner, or any
person having the care OF any building or
| l1t OF land bordering on any street, lane,
court, square, or public place IN this city,
where there is any footway or sidewalk,
shall. after the ceasiOg to fall OF any snow,
il in the daytime, within TWO hours, and II
| in the nighttime, before 9 O'Clock IN the
forenoon succeeding, cause The same 10 he
removed therefrOm, and in dcfanlt thereof
SHALL forfeit and pay sum OF not less than
two nor more than ten dollars; and for each
and every hour thereafter inat the same
{
such tenant, occupant, owner, or other per-
ION shall forfeit and pay sum not less than
one dollar nor more than ten dollars"
The evidence OF the policeman who re-
ported the alleged violation Of the ordinance
shows clearly that ne snow ceased falling
some time during the night OF the 2d OF Jan.
uary, 1881, and that at II O'Clock on tie
day following it remained on the sidewalk
OF the premises owned by the appellant at
! the corner Of Main and Laurel streets, in
this city; 50 that violation OF The ordinance
! is clearly proven. But il is insisted on the
part Of The appellant that no penalty should
! be Inflicted on him for such violation
/ 1st. Because, although II appears That the
ordinance has been on the statute-bOOks Of
the city for a num3er Of years, 1t has never
before been attempted 10 he enforced. and
i only attempted - be partially enforced
now.
I'd. Because The appellant was ignorant
OF the provisions OF The ordinance.
81. Because the city doesn't comply with
its provisions with reference 10 its own pro-
perty.
IN. Because there are certain eXtcnua.
ting circumstances connected with this case
which should excuse the violation Of the
ordinance by the appellant.
18th. Because the city OF Richmond has no
power under the terms OF It's charter to pass
such an ordinance, and that the same is
therefore Illegal and void and
9Th. Because the provisions Of the ordi-
nance are such as TO render them impOssi-
bic of performance.
Upon these grounds, thus briefly stated,
it is asked that the judgment Of the court
be low be reversed. In regard to the first
three cause> assigned by the appellant. IT is
almost needless to LAY more than that they
are sucn as have never been deemed suiti-
cient in any court, so far as am advised,
and will not be considered further IN this
case.
lin regard TO the fourth cause assigned by
the appellant, whilst he certainly shows
some eXtenuating circumstances connected
with this casc-Such as hi, recent owner
ship Of the pro eriy, the unexpected vaca-
ton Of il by the tenant. it, remote location,
the exceptional severity OF the late weather,
and hi attempt to have the snow removed
yet am of opinion that all Of these would
not be sufficient TO relieve him from the pc.
aalfy imposed for The violation Of the ordi-
nance il the ordinance was OF such a charac-
ter that it could properly be upheld and en-
forced by the courts.
viz, that the city has no power, under the
general provisions Of lis charter. to piss
any such ordinance as that under considera-
toni answer: Section 10 OF the Charter
provides that the City Council shall " have
the power to make such ordinances, by
laws, orders, and regulations aS they may
deem desirable to carry out the follow inc
powers which are hereby vested in them"
Among those enumerated are the follow
ing:
ClaiiSe7 I. "To close or extend, widen or
narrow, lay ont and graduate. pave, and
otherwise improve streets and public alleys
in the city, and have them property lighted
and kept in good ORDER"
Clause s. d" To prevent the cumbering Of
streets, avenues, walks. public squares,
lanes and alleys, or bridges, in any manner
whatever"
Clause 49, "To require and compel the
abatement and removal OF all nuisanceS
within said city al the expense OF the person
or persons causing the same, or the owner
or owners OF the ground whereOn the same
shall be-"
And by section 20 it is provided that
where the Council has authority to pass
ordinances on any subject tney may pre-
scribe any penalty not exceeding $500.
The authorities on the question OF the
validity OF these ordinances are not entirely
harmonious. In Gridley rs. The City OF
Bloomington, SS HIS, j54, it was held "that
q pal ordinance requiring occupants
and owners Of premises TO remove snow
from the adjacent sidewalks is invalid"
But in Goddard, petitioner, &c, lG
Pickering, 504, it was held by the Sn-
preme Count OF Massachusetts, Chief
Justice Shaw delivering the unanimous
opinion Of the court, that such an ordl-
nance. passed under general provision OF
the charter OF Boston. as it then existed,
and very similar 10 that OF this city, was
valid. T5e Court said in the latter case:
We think such an ordinance Is 10 be regard
ed as a "p0lice regulation, requiring duty
to be performed highly salutary and advan-
tageOus 10 the cllizens OF populous
and ciosely-buiit city, and which Is i'm
posed upon them because they are 50 Sit
uated as that they can promptly and con-
Veniently perform it," 'Al-
though the sidewalk is part OF the public
str eet, and the pubic have an easement in
it, yet the adjacent occupant often is The
Own,"r OF the fee, and generally has some
peeul. ;ar interest in 1t and benefit from il
distinc from that which be ENJOYS in COM
mon WI tn the rest OF the community. lie
has this interest and benefit often In accom-
moda,in., bis cellar-door and steps, a pas
,age for.f uel, and the passage to and from
MS bouse 70 the street. TO some purposes,
therefore,. il is denominated bis sidewalk.
For his ow,' accommodation he would have
m interest in clearing the snow from his
loor."
The Judge hen cites various authorities.
. Continuh ~, he says:
Surely IL the 'ity has the power TO make
I.n Lid oil 1t Ia