Daily Republican., 1882-08-08
THAT SLAUGHTER HOUSE.
Has City Coumefl the Power 10
PreVenS . BuiIGang Being erect
cd for amy Purpose,

4 PReVeMS . BullGang Being erect
cd for amy Purpose.
The case of d. 7. Kitchener, who wa
tried before Mayor Wales yesterday
afternoon on the charge of violating q
city ordinance by erecting slaughter
house within the limits Of the city, will
most probably test the power CT Coun
Gil to pass law that will interfere will
any business, so long as that business
Is carried on in such Q manner that it
IdoeS not become a nuisance. Mr.,
Michener obtained Q permit several
months ago to erect a brick stable al
the corner of Tenth and Adams street,
and since 1t has been completed ho has
| used the basement for the purpose OF
slaughtering sheep and calves. Some
of the neighbors finding out that he
was carrying on the butchering bus l.
ness in theplace, made complaint TO
the Board Of Health, and Executive
Officer Gaynor visited the place, and
testified yesterday that at the time Of
his visit he found everything so sweet
and clean that had it not been for Mr..
Michener's admission that he was
slaughterinR there he could not have
told 1t. Mr.. Michen er admitted that
he nsed the building for slaughter or
house.
All the witnesses for the prosecutio
ladmitted upon cross-examiDation that
there was no bad smell of any kind aris-
| ing from the place, and several Of them
said that OF their own knowledge they
did not know that any slaughteriug was
done on the premises. The prosecution
endeavored to show that the blood and
refuse was allowed to pass into Shipley
Run, but Mr.. Mlchener offered to prove
that he could not let 1t 60 into the sewer
even If he were so disposed, and stated
each day after he was done killing,
Everything that was liable to become
offensive was Immediately gathered up
in tubs or other vessels and hauled
away. The case then rested solely on
that part of section 4 of the ordlnanc cs
recently passed bV Council, which for
bids the erection of slaughter houses
within the limits of the city. Mr..
Sharpley appeared for the defense and
contended that Council had exceeded
their powers in passing law of that
nature and the only thing that either
Council or the Board Of Health could
do would be to prevent Its becoming a
nuisance. He argued that if they pos
sessed the right to say that a building
should not be erected for the purpose Of
carrying on the butchering business,
they had an equal right to say that a
man should not erect building for car.
rying on the grocery or any other bust.
ness.
The power of Council was prescribed
by the City Charter, and as the Board
of Health was q creature of Council,
that body could not give 1t powers that
it did not possess itself. Mr.. Sharpley
was followed by City Solicitor Turner,
who contended that Council had tue
authority to pass laws, regulating not
only buildings but also the business of
the city, and said that as there was no
penalty stated in this ordinance for a
violation of its provisions, the only
thing for the Mayor to do was to ad-
judge Mr.. Michener guilty and fix the
amount of fine that he thought neces-
sary. The Mayor said that he would
reserve his decision for the present,
and Mr.. Sharpley had no hesitation in
stating that If the decision was against
his client, they would appeal the case
to Court and test the power of Council
to enact such laws.