The morning times., 1896-11-03
PARK|NGs MAY Be USED
Couri Of Appe lis Upsets a
District Ordinance.
TEST CASE Is DECIDED
Been Prosecuted Held to Be Not
in FOrce-City Had No Right to
Make II at rhat Time Effect OF
the Decision.

The court of appeals in decision rem
dered yesterday afternoon declares that
The old municipal ordinance against the
Diocklhg otIhe parking and public reSer-
III The District of Columbia and affirnis
The decision of the district supreme court
IN its verdict acGuittng Messrs. Frank
Libbey. Benjamin Miller, Francis A Belt
represent two lumber firms, VINO We're ar
rested on a charge OF alleged anlawful
occupation OF certain public property by
them for private purposes. The proscciI-
ton was begun in the police court and by
writ of certiorari carried To the criminal
Court of the District.
1t was charged that they violated an
ordinance or the former city corpOration
which Attorney Thomas for the District
contended was still in force. By special
Instructions from the court the jury IN the
District took an appeal. Justice Morris
delivered the opinion yesterday, and in 1t
he holds that the ordinance in question was
enacted November 90. 1862, which was
some years before the so-callcd parking act
oil Congress was enacted authorizing the cit y
corporation to set apart from time To
tiine certain reservations.
JUSTICE NORRIS VIEWS.
Not all the streets and avenues OF the
city lie says, were affected at once
by the municipal authorities. In many
cases. especially in those portions OF the
city devoted principally to the purpose OF
business rather tnan 10 the purpose OF
residence, the municipal authorities have
constructed sidewalks, leaving unmprovcd
spaces between them and the building
line, and apparently leaving il 10 the
option of the adjacent owners wheth ar
they will improve these spaces and con
vert them into parks. This latter is the
condition OF the parking spaces. so called,
III front of the property occupied BY the
appeiices. They are charged with storing
by them or lumber on the parking spaces
IN front of their premises. The question
sought to be determined, therefore, Is
wnr,ner nv sucn use of these parking
spaces they are guilty OF Il violation of
the municipal ordinance.
The facts OF the case are simple, clear
and nndisputed: II is conceded that the
appellees occupied The space, and that
therefore, the appellees by unla oc-
cupyiEg are amenable to the penalties pro
vided by the ordinance. On the other
hand, the burden OF the argument on be
half of tn. appelle.s is that the ordinance
of 1862 was null and void. and never
had any operative effect, on the ground
hat th.. corporation or Washington had
no authority 10 enact it,"
vESTEDIN CONGRESS-.
After reviewing the organization by Con
SresS of the Parking Commission Justice
Morris says: we must hold that as Con
Gress had fully leGislated on the subject
and withdrawn ii from municipal control,
enact the ordinance Of November %, 1862,
so far as that ordinance applied TO streets
and avenues improved in whole or in part
by the United States.
The court of appeals incidentally refer
red Ia the fact, which had been overlooked.
that there should have been no writ or
certiorari granted because the police court
OF the District had concurrent jurisfiic-
tiOn in this case with the District supreme
court and could Just aS well determine the
facts. Justice Morris also referred TO the
Ipct tilat in the absence ofa specific statue
the District of Columbia had no right n.
appeal for prosecution in a criminal case.
and referred To the case of the United
states against Col. Ainswortll
lie wanted IL understood, however that
ne mentioned this merely for the purpose
mat on the decision in the present case il
.uv,.I n9' he urawn into precedent in
that regard.