The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-11-25
THE ORDINANCE VOID.
Justice Turner Decides Against the City
in tho Green Groceries Case,


in tho Green Groceries Case.
| A few days ago r. f. Martin and C..
| II. Rowzer were summoned before JUS
tice Turner for violating an ordinance
passed by tho Council September z,
which prohibited the sale OF green gro.
csries within four squares OF the market
houses. These gentlemen were repre-
scented by Judge King and Judge Brand,
who based their arguments on the
grounds that the ordinance was void
for the reason that it was unjust and
partial.
Justice Turner reserved his decision
until yesterday morning. when no de
cided that the ordin ance was void, and
gave as his reasons for so deciding the
following:
This case is one of somo Importance,
as it involves the validity Of tho ordi-
nance passed by the City Council Sop
TENDER Z, 1892, prohibiting the sale Of
frosh meats and fresh fish at any place
within five squares Of the city market
house, and permitting licensed mer-
chants outside that limit to sell fresh
meats and fresh fish at their places OF
business And knowing this question
directly affects larse number of mer-
CnanGS nave given tul~ iu1Otcl oetC lui
and earnest consideration.
"After hearing tho case deliberately
discussed by counsel OH both sides, and
consulting all the authorities at nv
command, 1 am forced to the conclu-
sion that this ordinance is void for the
reasons that it is unfair, unreasonable
and unjust. 1t is wellSettled prin-
ciple of law that all ordinances passed
by the City Council under the general
power, granted them by tho charter
must be first, reasonable; second, they
must not be oppressive: third, they
must be impartial, fair and general;
and fourth, they may regulate but not
restrict trade. (Dillon on Nun. Corp,
sec 235 to o57.) And this doctrine has
has been laid down time and again by
the courts of this and other Ststes.
This ordinance does not, I think,
measure up to this standard. 1t dis
eliminates between merchants in the
same place, dealing in the same kinds
of merchandise, for no better reason
than that one does business with five
squares of public market house and
another outside that limit. If this kind
of discrimination is legitimate there is
no reason why Council cannot go further
and say that dry goods may be sold on
the south side OF Salem avenue and pro-
hibit their sale on the north side Of the
same street; nor is there any reason
why they could not confne ono mer-
chant to the sale of 8 few articles, and
allow his competitor next door, who has
the same license and pays the same
license tax, to sell all kinds of goods.
1.-The argument made by the city So
licitor that the health Of the city might
be endangered by keeping on hand
meats and vegetables which are liable
to decay, is met by the consideration
that il it is unhealthy to allow the sale
of these articles within five squares of
the market houses. it would certainly
be just as unhealthy to allow them to
be sold outside that limit. And if
Council intended this order as q sanitary
measure, it must be made general in it's
application
Eston Randolph, the city solicitor,
was seen by TIMES reporter and asked
if the city would take an appeal. Mr..
Randolph replied: Il will take no APP
peal unless so ordered by the city.
told them when the ordinance was
passed that it was void, and the de-
cision of Justice Turner is no surprise
to me-"