Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-12-22
Occupation al street Parking sor Busi-
Eees 7urposes.

BEaRIES IN THE POLICE COURT YEsTERpAY-
FINES IMPOSED AND APPEALS NOTED.
The charges of occupying the streets and
avenues for private purposes. against several
lumber dealers. mill owners and fouaders
south of the Avenue and between 18Th and 18th
streets northwest. were heard in the Police Court
Yesterday. The defendants We're represented
by Messrs. Carls Elliott and Goldshorouoh.
The first case called was that of Francis \ Belt
of the firm of Ayers x Belt. lumber dealers AT
the intersection az 18th and streets and Ohio
avenue. Policemen Thompson and Bailey OF
the fifth precinct testified that this firm own a
planning mill and do q large business, and oc-
cUpy about 100 feet of the parking on Ohio ave
nue (nearly the whole square). for the purpose
OF storing lumber, all the time.
Mr. GOldsb0T0ugh appeared as counsel for de-
PENDANTS. and said that these cases are worthy
Of more consideration than is usually given OF,
account of the effect that the disposition of them
NAV have on the business of merchants in the
city He claimed that the opinion recently given
BY Judge Cox. in the Monroe case did not APP
ply 10 a case OF this kind and such decision
would tend to impede business in this city. and
u these large parks were to be kept in front of
the places OF business of merchants. and the
merchants not allowed to deposit goods on
them at all. they are curses not only to business
men, but to property holders.
The court said that no matter what sympathy
he had for these business men. this wasa matter
of law in which he had no discretion. and the
only thing left for him to do was TO dispose OF
the case according to law. Congress has made
laws specifically making the occupation OF
streets. avenues or public parks, for private
purposes violation of the law. There was no
question that the defendant had light to enter
his mill and carry his goods into his mill. but
he cannot use the parking for mill yard. De-
cupyiag the street in this way. was the same i'm
the meaning of the law. as occupying it for a
structure. The court imposed a fine of S25 in
this case
Mr. Elliott stated that he represented Sears &
Co. in the same neighbOIhood. and his clients
were going to remove on account of not being
allowed to pile their goods outside. and asked
the court to give them 80 days to move. The
court consented to this Messrs Carusi. Elliott
and Cole told the court that they represented
Petit < Dripps. boiler Makers VIM Mel .ean F..
Jackson and Daniel Smith. lumber dealers. and
Chas- A. Schneider, iron worker. and as the
testimony in these cases was the same that
given in the first case. to save time. they would
let that testimony be considered as taken in
these cases.
The court declined to do this. and the wit
nesses were sworn and testified. and the court
imposed q fine of 5225 IN each case. and appeals
We're noted Subsequently the court gave sew
eral of the defendants 30 days to remove the
distractions. and suspended execution of sen
tence in these cases Mr.. Padrett stated that
il these distractions were not removed in one
week the government would proceed against
them again.