Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-05-19
FRANCIS r. DILLON FINED.
building Inspector Dohi Secures Another
Conviction for Violation of the Build
On. nrIfnnnea

ing Oruiuauces
At municipal court Monday night +. p.
Dillon, son of excluding Inspector
Patrick Dillon, was arraigncd on charge
of violating the building ordinance, pre-
ierred by Building Inspector Dohl. Harry
Emmons was present to defend Mr..
Dillon and CITY Solicitor Charles NJ. Curtis
conducted the prosecution.
Building Inspector Daniel Dohl, who
preferred the charge, was on hand to pros
ecute the case. He was called to the stand
after the ordinance bearing on the case
had been read by the city solicitor, He tes-
titled that he examined the partition wall
between three houses on Lincoln street
near Gilpin avenue and found the ioists
fastened squarely together instead of being
separated. The division wall is inches
thick. The joists are embedded in the wall
% inches and two OF them were run in the
chimney fue.
Mr.. Dohl stated that he went out TO
where the houses were being erected, Mon
day, and stopped all work upon them.
In reply to the questions OF Mr.. Emmons
witness said he did not know who did the
work, but found that Mr. Dillon had taken
the permit out. Witness said he found
the violation of the ordinance himself. He
had found the defect in the building last
Saturday. He saw there had been three
permits issued for the buildings and went
to the place and inspected them. Mr..
Emmons asked the witness if he hadn I
told certain persons that if any one else
had been doing the work he would have
gone to them and told them to remedy IL
before issuing warrant.
Mr.. Curtis objected to the question, and
Mr.. Emmons stated that he desired to
prove malice on the part of Mr.. Dohl in
causing the arrest Of Mr.. Dillon. Mr..
Dohl admitted that he had made the state
inent, and stated AS his reason for making
the assertion that, as Francis L. Dillon
was d son of the building inspector he
| ought to know better than to violate the
| ordinance.
The answer made by the witness was
unexpected OH the part of Mr.. Enmons.
| and further questioning was dispensed
with.
Councilman McKelvey testified toaccorn
panying Inspector Dohl to the place where
| the buildings We're going up. The work
was Il violation of the ordinance.
| Mr.. Emmons, in behalf Of the defence
stated that the work was not done by Sir
Dillon, but by the sub-contractors ane
| that the sub contractors were responsible
for the violation. Mr.. Emmons alsC
| claimcd that il was the inspector duty tC
| notify the builder III case he found tits
buildings were violation of the city ordi
| nance.
For the defence Mr.. lGmmons callet
George Pickering. The latter stated tina
he and his son had done the work on th'
buildings. Mr.. Pickering said there weri
several inches between the ioists, and tina
MIR. Dillon had not seen the work. Mr.
Emmons again held that rs Mr.. Dillol
had not done the work, nor had he in
spceted it, be could not be held culpabl
for the violation. Mr.. Emmons did no
think MIR. Dohl had been elected as
prosecuting officer, and that he would hnv
been performing his duty ii he had noti
fled MIR. Dillon Of the violation.
Judge Ball stated that there was q dii
ference between sections 8 and Il, am
called Mr.. hnimons' attention to this fact
The court stated that it was optional witt
With the building inspector whether h
should notify the party violating the ordi
nance or not or have him arrested.
Nj. CARTS stated that, even if Nj
Dillon had not done the work on tn
building, he was responsible for the viola
ton.
Judge Fall stated that the violation Ia
not only been clearly proven by the wi
ness for the prosecution, hut also by til
witness for the defense Sin our opinion,
the court continued. this is a clear viol;
ton OF section q Of the ordinance. Til
sentence Of the court is that the defendai
pay fine Of SO and costs of the prosect
tion.n