Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-12-05
TIE COAL OIL DEALsss.

The cases of the alleged violators Of the
city ordinance which prohibits the storage of
more than 500 gallons Of coal oil in any one
place without first obtaining permission OF
the City Trustees, came up for hearing In
the Police Court yesterday. Joseph Steffens,
L. Tez=r, J. c. Harvey, E. 81, Forester and
d. NJ. Blank were the parties under arrest.
The prosecution was conducted by City At
torney Anderson, and the attorneys for the
defendants were Messrs. Freeman Il Bates.
The case Of d. NJ. Blank was the first called.
DESCENDANTS counsel presented demurrer,
which it was agreed should be considered
fled in each of the cases. The following are
the points of the demurrer:
Fifst-Because it does not appear there
from that any public or other crime or ofense
has been committed
Sscond-Bscause it does not appear there
from that any law exists and is in force max
ing unlawful or criminal the acts charged In
such complaint.
Third-Because he is charged with two
dis met { Fl .nses, to wit With storing and
keeping petroleum, and also with storing and
keeping the refined products of petroleum.
Fourth-Because said complaint is ambigu.
Gus, uncertain and unintelligible in this, that
~ CANNOT pe unuersLoOu tutftlroh "uat re-
fined product of petroleum this defendant is
charged with storing and keeping, or permit
ting TO be stored and kept.
In support of these points counsel for de-
PENDANTS argued that the ordinance was re-
pugnant to tie Constitution, because it was
not general, and permitted the Board of
Trustees to discriminate between individuals,
because it authorized the Board to grant per.
mission TO store or keep more than 800 gal
Ions that such clause rendered the ordin.
ance partial and unreasonable; that the
ordinance was not a regulation, but in effect
was an absolute prohibition, which was not
authorized by the charter that it, in effect,
would give the Board of Trustees authority
to constitute q monopoly by granting per-
mission to one citizen and denying it
to another. A large number Of authorities
were cited in support of these views. City
Attorney Anderson replied q. considerable
length, and argued chat even though the per-
missive portion of the ordinance be invalid,
that this could be eliminated, and the bal
ance OF the ordinance would be constitu-
tional that it ID an almost elementary pria.
ciple Of law that statute can be iHvalidin part,
and yet the other portions which are unexcep.
tionable will stand that this Is one of those
ordinances authorized by the greatest power
known to the law as the police power of the
State; that it is for the protection and safety
of all citizsns that while it may impose bur
dens upon some, it is one of those restrictions
that the citizen owes to the community; that
ii is most salutary law; that Courts always
look more fsyorably upon such laws than any
others that it is not conceded that even the
Objectionable portion authorizing the Board
to grant permission is unconstitutional, be.
cause the Supreme Court of the . nited States
in the noted Slaughter House cases, held sub.
stantially that such acts are not inhibited by
any institutional provision that the per.
mission was also general and affected all alike;
that the whole ordinance was general in its
terms and character, and applied to all per-
sous, individuals, firms and corporations, and
was not subject to any of the objections of
counsel for defendants. Numerous authori-
ties were cited by the City Attorney sustain
log his position. After argument the Court
overruled the demurrer. and ordered the
trial to proceed.
The only testimony offered by the proseca-
ton YVES ordir a9ce No. 125, and some testi-
mony to prove that the ordinance had been
violated by the defendant. The defense Of
fered SIS testimony the permit to store oil in
tanks near the river, which was granted by
The City Trustees January "a, 1880, but it
was not allowed. The case was then submit
ted without argument.
The Court announced as its decision that
defendant was guilty as charged. It was
agreed by counsel that the same testimony
for the prosecution should be considered in
in each of the remaining cases, and the cases
were submitted. The Court found each of
the defendants guilty. A motion for arrest
of judgment and for new trial was made
and overruled. Defendants then asked for
Judgment, and the Court pronounced fine
Of $50 each.
An appeal will be made to the Superior
Court, aud the matter will probably come up
before that Court on Monday next. when it
will be placed on the calendar Cor trial.