Daily Republican., 1884-05-14
SINNERS MUST GO.
JUbGE CUmAIHs RENDERs HIS
DECISION IN THE SMlN.-
NER CASES.

Dhring the session of the Municipa
Count ntTuesday morning Judge Cum
| m nh rendered his decision In the cas-
of the Mayor and City Council vs.. Isaa
| Fredd. It will be remembered tina
this |suit was brought upon information
filed for selling meats on King stree
market, which were not fed or slaugh
tered on the defendants premises, b.
beink q butte her Or what is more ia
mili1Ar!y termed Q "shinner."
! when the case was first heard Lev
| G. Bird, ESQ, counsel for the defense,
arpuIed against the validity Of the orii
nande. After listening to the argument
the Judge reserved his decision unit
Tuesday, when it was submitted to thu
court and read as follows :.
1rhe right to regulate the market II
ono lof municipal police. The city
auth }orities may say what articles shal
or shall not be sold at public market,
aud bDay impose penalties on those who
violate their ordinances Dillon on
munt cor. 389. The Council may pre-.
scribe that some ar icles, for example
fish shall be sold at one place meat al
another and farm produce At another
and the times for such sales. The per
sons selling these have an interest in,
but hot such an interest as entities them
| to Voice in the regulation of such
salesI that belongs to City Council un.
der the charter, and the Council may
remotve and abolish street or curb
mari ets and provide for r'other markets
in lid u thereof.
-" There would seem to be nothing in
the ordinance, or rather in section 2, in
violation of the constitutions Of either
the United States or this State; moth
ing tb deprive the defendant of life, lib
erty land properly, or to abridge un-
warrhntably his privileges or immuni.
ties. There must be some police regu.
IatioLh over the markets and sale OF
prod hcts therein, under tie city's
regulj jation. One following the business
of th4 defendant according to his adj
sd mil tssion of facts in this case, can not
sell II be articles complained of at the
timed and places set apart for sale of
farm Iproducts on King street. He may,
however, according to the ordinance,
sell II hem on Madison street, this city,
or At the various shops, stores
and nbarket houses, the object being
to sell meat to the citizens of Whining
ton.
Py being deprived Of the right to sell
at on4B place only, King street, he cam
not cl aim that the ordinance is viola.
ton d + the private rights, nor that it is
al rIhproper restraint Of trade it is
ratheE a wholesome regulation Of it to
prevel lnt the market from being unneces
sarilI thronged and encountered. 1t
doe. OF restrain theright to sell meat,
but regulates that right. Buffalo vs..
W eb5ter 10; Wend, 80 lin re. Nigh.
tengal e, II /; Pick, 167, Comm. VS..
Rice, 8 Metcl'f, 253. Wartman ct. al,
VS.. PIhila. 80 Pa. 202. Dillon on Munc.
Corp Sd ed, sections $50, 800 and notes.
In concluding the reading Of the re-
port, Judge Cummins stated that the
IActid of the counsel for the defense
was d |enied and that the defendant was
r-quif red to plead or demur. Mr.. Bird,
ior rhl defense, stated that his advice
TO his tclients would be TO make this a
test cIbse rs to the right Of any person
to staSnd on curbstone markets, I'll
this dhould be done lively warfai 8
againtt the street markets will be in
augurl lated and the end will be anxiously
louke,t for.