Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-30
THE PUBLIC PARKING
Judge Bradley Bays IL May Be Used by
Pnyase Parties.
Decision In the Cases of the District
Against Lumber Dealers
RN Ordinance Of 1862.

Judge Bradley this afternoon decided
against the District in. It's contention that
the ordinance Of the corporation Of Wash
ington. of 1862 prohibits the use Of parking
by owners Of abutting property.
TtN decision was rendered III the cases OF
the District against Frank Ltbbey, 9Th
street and New York avenue; Belt Il Dyer,
18th and c streets, and Bittinger & Miller.
18th street and Ohio avenue, who were
charged in the Police Court some time ago
under the ordinance Of 1882 with unlaw-
fully occupying public spaces for private
uses
Der bus,ne SIS, and it was charged that they
used the parking on which their ground
abutted for storing lumber. Before the
cases were tried in the Police Court, their
counsel, Mr.. VIM. T. Mattingly, had them
brought up 70 the Circuit Court on writs
of certiorari, the cases being tried today
before Judge Bradley and a jury.
The attorneys for the District, Messrs.
S. I. Thomas and A. B. Duvall, after the
testimony had closed argued that the Or
dinance of 1862 was applicable, while Mr..
Mattingly commended that it was not This
afternoon Judge Bradley delivered his
opinion He regretted that he had not had
greater time i'll which to prepare it, but
said that it seemed to him clear that the
ordinance relied on does not apply.
That is a penal statute. he explained, and
must Ne CONSTRUED Strlctly Al the tiuie
1t was enacted there existed no such a
thing as parking, the acts Of 1870 and 1872
alcEe providing for them. Neither of the
last named acts provide a penalty for the
nuisance or misappropriation of the city
parkings, the act of the legislative assem-
bly, Of 1872, while excluding the general
public, providing that owners Of abuttlng
lots shall make such use Of the parking
as they may desire. provided existing grass
and shrubbery, and chains. posts, ETC., are
not thereby injured or destroyed.
OF course, said Judge Bradley, it was
rever intended that the parkings should be
used for priva te business purposes yet the
act of 1872 did not definitely provide what
use they might be put to by abutting land
owners. In the cases on trial it did not APP
pear that the defendants destroyed or in
jured existing grass or shrubbery, etc.
The act of 1862, said Judge Bradley, pro-
hlbits the use for private purposes of any
street, open space. or public grounds or
reservation, providing a penalty of from
$50 to $50 a day for such misuse. Those
not apply to parkings for the very good
reason that there then QS6O existed no
parkings.
1t was, therefore, perfectly clear to him,
concluded the judge that the ordinance of
1862 being a penal one, should be con-
strued strictly. and the term parking can
not be said to have been referred to therein.
No doubt there should be such a law, but
until Congress legislated in the matter the
courts would be without authority or power
to inf1ict any penalty.
He therefore directed the jury to acquit
the defendants, which was done. To Judge
Bradley's ruling the district attorney noted
an exception, giving notice of appeal to
the Court of Appeals.