Waterbury evening Democrat., 1894-03-21
BEFORE JUDGE WARNER.
Evidence and Arguments on the Appli-
cation of Charles Miller to Have the
injunction Restraining Him From Re-
nafring His Building Removed.

Evidence and Arguments on the Appli-
cation of Charles Miller to Have the
Injunction Restraining Him From Re-
pairing His Building Removed.
The hearing on the injunction proceed
incs of Charles Miller was held to-day in
the district court Neither Judge Brad
street or Judge Root presided. 1t was
agreed to have Judge Warner of the court
of common pleas of Litchfeld try the case.
The hearing opened at IL o'clock. At
torney Davenport of Bridgeport and John
W. Webster appeared for Charles Miller
and Attorney O'Neill for the city. 1t was
mutually agreed before the witnesses went
on the stand that the arguments would be
confined solely to the matter of roof cover
ing The plaintiffs said they proposed to
erect the roof against the wishes of the
board of aldermen and on this the hearing
was held.
George Tracy testified as follows: Have
made a contract with Charles Miller The
roof is destroyed only two-ffths We
propose to put on new rafters and boards
covered with tin or iron. The old roof
was covered with iron. 1t is optional with
Mr. Miller whether it be tin or iron. The
remainder of the roof simply needs re-
pairing where holes were chopped through.
The cost of the whole roof would be 500
or $500. The two-ffths and other repairs
to he done cost $500. Iron roof has no
solder and the part now remaining is all
right AS one of the adjusters l valued
the whole building at 81 900, and the loss
at 81, 325 Do not know loss on fixtures.
On cross examination Mr. Tracy SAID the
ceilings, side walls and floors were in
cluded in the 1925. That amount in
cluded all known or anticipated losses.
cd VII o n
tended to put on, replied: The best,
whether tin or IRON"
Attorney Webster then showed a map of
the building and explained Browns build
ing in the rear, and claimed that Mr.
Brown was allowed to put on~a similar
roof, although there was twenty times
more the amount of wood work
Chief Snagg said he did not give Mr.
Miller permission to rebuild but did give
permit to Mr. Brown because he had
complied with the requirements of the
law and his building was of brick.
Millers old roof was of iron on top of
shingles Chief Snagg admitted that to
put on the roof would not increase the fire
risk. This was all the evidence taken.
Attorney Davenport began the argu-
meuts. He quoted authorities from all
over the country and decisions handed
the argument was that the power invested
in the city boards was not constitutional
His claim was that the ordinance clashed
with higher laws and must be unconstitu-
tional. After naming law after law he
then touched up the mayor and the
boards, claiming that they were trying to
enforce an ordinance which was worse
than any daspotic laws. He claimed that
the ordinance was void, because it is I'M
reasonable. His argument lasted about
two hours.
Attorney O'Neill began the argument
for the city at o'clock. He first said the
laws quoted by Attorney Davenport are
not applicable in this case. The structure
he had built up was based on bad law
The common council has the right to de-
clare that nuisance which may not be a
nuisance. He then quoted various de
cisions bearing on the case. One case he
referred to was the act of the legislature
condemning the old cemetery and the sub
sequent suit of the Scovill heirs for remu-
neration. The supreme court upheld the
legislature. He quoted, also, the New
Britain case where the common council
passed an ordinance forbidding fishing in
the reservoir, although the grantor who
presented the land had provided that he
should be allowed to use the place as n
fishing ground. The supreme court up
held the council. He then jumped on At
torney Davenport for some of his law
quotations. In regard to his declaration
that the ordinance is void he said it would
be if the council had required man to
put on a new roof or build a new building
because spark had burned one
shingle. He then read some
law which Attorney Davenport had
not finished when he read from
the case. The law was as to the
right to enact any reasonable bylaw to
protect the city from fire. He then quoted
the sections of the bylaws passed by the
city 1t is bylaw enacted by legal
board and no person has right to erect,
alter or move a building without permits
sion. \ license must be procured from the
aldermen whether the roof is fire proof or
not. If the city restraints Mr. Miller from
rebuilding. the city is responsible and Mr.
Miller can sue for damages.
Mr. O'Neill finished at 3:15. In conclud-
ing looking at Judge Webster, he said:
1--WE only want part of AIiller's money"
Between you both, you will have all of
it, said Mr. Miller.
A recess was then taken, after which
Judge Webster will make his argument.