Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-05-01
SAYS IL is no GOOD
Judge Burlingame Decides
That the Mix Ordinance
is INVALID AND OF NO EFFECT
He Reasons That Its Terms Amount 10
Impossible Conditions and Therefore
They are Null and Void.

After quoting the provisions OF the
charter NJ length Judge Burhngame, IN
deciding the case of the people against
Irving Woodwork, in favor OF the do
tsndsnt, says in reference I'd the milk
ordinance:
IL will be seen that the city Of Grand
Rapids. through It's officers. instead OF
being satisfied with tho terms, coudi-
tons and requirements OF Act No. 2io
OF the laws Of 1881, all Of which they
have by one sweeping clause made part
and parcel OF this ordinance, and not
outstanding this state law goes to the
uery verge of constitutional limit IN
what il permits the board OF health
and inspector of milk to do in the
premises, and imposing severe penal
ties for the adulterAtion and sale OF
impure milk; and IN the face OF the
language OF their own charter before
referred to, section q, title 8, which
says that nothing IN section 10 OF this
title or IN this act contained shall be
construed so as To prohibit any farmer
from selling without license to per-
sons within the city the products OF his
farm without restriction as TO guam
tity." say in the face Of such state
Of affairs the common council has IN
this ordinance virtually said that no
farmer shall sell or have sold IN the
city OF Grand Rapids the milk product
OF his farm unless he conducts that
farm according to the formula laid
down in minutie for bis guidance by
the common council of this city.
suppositions Submitted.
But 1t may be said that the respon-
dent should at least have applied for Il
license and sought his remedy after he
had been refused. But suppose he ned
applied. and suppose ne had been
granted license, the council and the
board of health having waived thc I'M
possible conditions which the law re-
quires, what condition would be DO In,
having at large expense prepared HIM
self to engage in the business, il 1t
should be discovered that some farmer
had not complied with some OF the
requirements of the nine subdivisions
of section 4, or, If the grantors OF the
license should have been unable to
state the "exact number of cows from
which milk is TO be sold" or exactly
where the same are kept" or suppose
while the cows we're for five months
kept in pasture as required by section
l, subdivisien 4, they should not on &C.
count of drought yield sufficient sup
ply and the farmer should add to his
number; and then suppose the presl-
dent of the board of health should,
under the direction of the board of
health, make an affidavit covering the
non-fultilment of any one of the
above conditions, what would be the
absolute duty of the mayor in the
premises under section of this law?
Would Deprive the Farmer
1t would be to revoke his license and
thus deprive the farmer of his market,
the consumer of his milk, and the
dealer of his occupation, and leave
upon his hands without use, his teams,
wagons, cans, etc., simply because an
ordinance required conditions of him
and of themselves that were absolutely
impossible to perform. l do not think
that under such circumstances land
such think are the circumstances OF
this CASEY any person in law is required
to make application even for such q
license; and much less do l think a
person should be arrested, tried, con-
vlcted and punlsned SIS u criminal who
neglected or refused to make applica.
ton for such . license under such CIR
cumstances. The court is of the
opinion that the ordinance, so far Us
it required the respondent to take GU,
q license, is, on account of its unreaeOn.
able and impossible conditions, null
and void, and therefore the MAXIM
that every person is presumed to know
the law, Is not unduly stretched in pre-.
Stunning that the respondent knew what
Was not good law, and therefore cannot
be held liable for not applying for q
license which he knew was impossible
for the common council to grant II
tn ey lived up to their own requirements
The respondent is found not guilty
and 10 discharged.
The decision Of Judge Burlingame
il final and no appeal will be taken.