Los Angeles herald., 1891-08-09
THE COURTS.
Brick Kilns in the City
Limits Forbidden.
Term Trial and Grand Jurors
Drawn Yesterday.
Cases Acted On In the Supreme and
Federal Courts.
A Wife Charged With DESERVING Her
Husband-Hoff, Charged With In
cendiarism, Discharged.
New Cases.

OF the ponce court, and uphOldS an
ordinance forbidding the location of
brick kilns within the city limits. The
decision, which is of considerable i'm
portance, reads as follows
Defendant was convicted in the po-
lice court under a city ordinance pro-
hibiting the erection or maintaining of
brick kilns within certain prescribed
limits of the city.
"a demurrer was interposed to the
complaint, which was overruled. De-
fendant stood by his demurrer, and
Judgment was entered for violation of
such ordinance.
"There are two grounds of demurrer
"First-That the complaint does not
state public offense.
"Second-That more than one offense
is charged.
"The first point made by counsel for
defendant in their briefs is upon the
question of nuisance. / do not think
that question is necessarily involved in
this action.
''The ordinance contains no sugges-
ton of nuisance, and it would seem the
city has not considered it in that light.
Counsel for the defendant have made
very lengthy and very able briefs, but
after all we must resort to the charter
for authority and guidance in this case.
Section 13 of article l provides that the
city shall have the right to license and
regulate the carrying on OF all trades,
callings and occupations
''Does this clause confer the right to
prohibit the erection of brick-kilns in
certain specified limits of the city? To
regulate is to subject to rules or
restrictions, to dispose, to arrange.
Suppose, by ordinance, the city
had said: No brickkiln shall be erected
upon the border OF any public park, or
upon Spring street between First and
Second streets; would it be contended
the city could not prohibit? | think the
authority clear, not only in this clause,
but under its power to prescribe fire
limits and regulate that subject.
''It may be said that if they have the
right to regulate this subject or occupa-
ton, it may prohibit dry goods houses,
hotels, etc. Certainly, if proper case
were presented; but the regulation
must be reasonable, consistent with the
rights of the people, not arbitrary or
autocratic, nor in conflict with estab-
ll6ucu laws. Dub yOu say 1hO law
gives the citizen the right to use his
property for legitimate purposes as he
pleases. But the maxim: Sec uteret
tue ut alienum non laedas'-'So use your
own as not to injure another
with all rights, and cities must, of ne
cessity, have the power to regulate the
trades and business for the well-being
of all.
''The ordinance must be reasonable
regulation.
"Fhe ordinance in question may be
quite the reverse, may be entirely un-
called for, but this is not apparent from
the ordinance itself.
''The case must be determined on the
demurrer, and the court will not pre-
sumo the city has acted arbitrarily or
without good cause for such ordinance,
and the case rests upon the right OF the
city to regulate the manufacture of brick
within the city limits, and am OF
the opinion the city has such power
under its charter.
'It is not perceived that two offenses
are charged in the complaint. There
fore a new trial is denied, and judgment
of police court affirmed.
"B. N. SMITH, Judge"
In department one yesterday grand
and a term trial jury were drawn from
the jury box in the presence of Judge
Shaw. The grand jury will report in
department one on September 7th and
the trial jury on August oath.
The following were the names drawn
for the grand jury:
w. S. Arnold, J. B. Banning, A. L.
Ball, H. A. Barraclough, G. w. Baldwin
II. j.. Bissell, F. B. Beckford, j. l..
Blackman, Ed Bouton, Albert Bridgen
John Brooker, s. B. Caswell, Julius N
Garter, Frank Cogswell, @. N. Earl, j
M. Frew, Thomas Goss, P. M. Greene
G.. G. Hager, ]. G. Hiatt, j. Q. Houser
w. Y. Kellam, A. P. Kerckhoff, Thomas
Landreth, G. w. Morgan, f. S. Munson
B. N. Mcdonald, j. A. Nourse, E. N
Prindle, G. d. Rowan, H. w. Sessions
M. Teed, F. w. Tyler, ]. S. Vosburgf
and j. w. Wolfskill.
The term trial jury will consist of thu
following: G. W. Adams, VIM. Ash
mead, Chas. Baker, f. Bates, james
Baldridge, T. F. Bixby, G. s. Bradford
r. r. Brown, j. F. Branch, VIM
Caruthers, Delos Campbell, A. E. Chip
man, F. N. Cooke, F. A. Day, D. H
Davis, G. w. Damerel, j. w. Davis, L
B. De Camp, j. G.. Denman, E. P
Dolley, VIM. Dryden, G. L. Ducommon
Henry Ewald, d. Felix, S. K. Flanders
E. R. Fox, w. F. Grosser, o. Hall, M
S. Hewes, Albert Hickok, J. M. Houser
J. @. Hutton, w. A. Irwin. Davit
Jones, S. X. Jones, T. j. Kerns, L. M
La Fetra, l. S. Langstadter, 7. Lestrade
John Lowell, ). j Mahoney, M. III. Nc
Vean, j. H. Myers. w. F. Nordholt, A
M. Peck, Enoch Pepper, G. H. Pike, H
J.Pinney, d. P. Russell, r. r.. Smith
James Settright, F. e. Stockwell, Henr
Steere, A. Vignolo, E. l.. Watkins, Joh
Weber, J. P. Welcom, G. II. Wright, L
H. Young and w. w. Young.
THE SUPREME COURT.
A decision reached this city, yester
day, from the supreme court in the cas-
of Mary H. Newton, respondent, VS.. B
J. Hill ct al, defendant. The origins
action was to forecose a vendors lie
on seventeen acres of land and eigh
shares OF the capital stock of the LAX
Vineyard Land and Water company
The plaintiff obtained Judgement, bu
defendant Hill appealed from the decis
ion, claiming a deed had not bee
rendered at the specific time, and ask
ing Judgment for $166666, his share Q
the payment made on the property
The supreme court affirms the superic
courts decision.