Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1896-03-05

Against five OGn6T Al4SSSO VIZ
lators of the Fire Law-Additional
Names Submitted, but Warrants
Refused.
The case of the city V. James A.
Henry. charged with violation of the
city law prohibiting the erection of
wooden buildings over ten feet in height
within certain designated portions of
the city, was fought to finish in Police
Court, yesterday morning, and resulted
in a fine of ten dollars and costs being
assessed against the defendant-the full
limit Of the law.
AS a result of this judgment, Mr..
Henry during the day swore out war
rants alleging the same violation OF law
of which he was convicted against
James l.. Hawley, the Peabody Insur-
ance Company, the Donaldson Carriage
Company. Henry Schmulbach and Nc
Lain Bros. He submitted the names or
about a dozen other parties, for whom
he had warrants, but Clerk Watkins re-
fused some of them because the build
ings complained Of were not within any
prescribed fire limits, and therefore did
not come under the law, while other
cases were Withdrawn by Mr.. Henry
upon reflection. There was quite a
spirited seance between Mr.. Henry and
Clerk Watkins during the day, in which
the honors were about even.
Twelve of fifteen witnesses, summon
ed by Mr.. Henry, were present when the
case was called in Police Court, yester-
day morning, as well as considerable
number of interested spectators. The
trial opened with an objection by City
Solicitor Boyce to the plea filed by Mr..
Henry at Mondays session Of the Court,
in which he maintained that the city
ordinance was void because it had not
been properly attested by the Mayor
and sealed with the city seal, and asked
TO have the proceedings against him
dismissed. Pending the settlement of
this point. however Mr. Henry asked
for the written and printed city ordi-
mace books. which were produced.
Then. addressing the Court, Mr.. Henry
said the city had no right to go ahead
with the case il there was no law bear
ing on the case. II want justice.
The Mayor said he was not present TO
receive instructions from Mr.. Henry,
but TO see whether or not law Of the
city had been violated. He added that
it was not the province of the Court to
pass upon the validity of the law. To
this Mr.. Henry rejoined that it was the
privilege and duty of the Mayor to
construe the law as we'll as to enforce
it. and claimed that the ordinace with
out the signature of the Mayor and the
seal of the city was of no more validity
than a deed would be without the sig
nature of the party making it.
IF that is the question here. said
His Honor, "the witnesses present nave
nothing TO do with the case, and they
will not be allowed to testify. The
question appears to be, has the City's
Court the authority TO enforce the laws
made by the city
That's about the strangest proceed
ing I ever heard. suggested Mr.. Henry.
A prolonged controversy ensued. dur
ing which the Mayor said that if the
witnesses were present to prove there
had been other violations Of the law
their testimony would not be heard, as
there was no pending case except that
against Mr. Henry. but they would be
admitted on the understanding their
testimony was TO be confined 10 the case
at bar. This brought from Mr.. Henry
the declaration that the law had been
violated a hundred times. and that he
would have every man Jack of them
IN on a warrant. Solicitor Boyce sug-
gested that Mr.. Henry was losing his
temper. but Mr.. Henry ignored the OBJ
servation.
Then Fire Chief Healy was called,
and deposed that the construction of the
building was of wood. without brick,
stone or mortar. Nj Henry, on cross
examination. undertook to extract some
information from the Chief about other
buildings within the fire limits. but So
licitor Boyce objected and was sus-
tanned.
ct wanted to show that this is a ma
licious prosecution" the defendant sta
ted.
Mr.. Boyce suggested that the defend
ant conduct himself with proper de-
corum.
well. want you to understand that
7 am here after justice and want fair
treatment"
Your honor. 7 ask that the defendant
be fined for stating that he is not re-
ceivina fair treatment" said Col. Boyce.
Architect Hamilton was called by Mr..
Henry. who started to demonstrate by
witness that he had been told by sundry
and divers city officials that the build
ing he proposed to erect was lawful and
proper. Mr.. Boyce objected to the evil
dence. and the witness was shut out.
There was a sharp and crisp dialogue
here between defendant and Mr. Boyce.
as to the nature Of bricks. and whether
Mr.. Boyce knew a brick when he
saw one. but the end was that Mr..
Henry was again discounted by decis-
ion by His Honor Mr.. Henry hen call
ed several other witnesses but they
were ruled out. and after lot more dis
cussion all around the Mayor annOunc-
ed the guilt of the defendant and i'm
posed fine of $40 and costs. Mr..
Henry wanted it raised to 500 so he
could take an appeal. but this couldn't
he done. for the reason that $40 is the
highest fine allowed by the ordinance.
and Mr.. Henry was forced to accept the