St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-02-14
JUDGE, oTIszsUsTAINs THE LAW OF
1893 REGARDING. SIDEWALK
REPAIRS.
HENRY, THIEEs LIGHT FINE.
HE HAD TO PAY 500 FOR KEEP
ING A DISORDERLY
HOUSE.
THE, ELY CLOTHING STORE CASE.
1t Occupies the Present Attention
of Judge Willis and q
Jury.

Judge Otis yesterday filed a decision
In which he upholds the constitution
atty of the law of 1898, providing that
no petition is necessary for the relay
ing or repairing of sidewalk. This
decision was in the nature of an order
overriding the objections of David J..
Hennessy to the application for judg-
ment for sidewalk assessments against
lots l and 80, block 4, Summit Park adj
dition. In the memorandum attached
to his order Judge Otis says:
Under the Bell charter of 1891 no improve
ment in the nature of grading streets or lay
ing out of new sidewalks could be ordered
except upon petition Of cne-third of the prop
erty owners fronting on the proposed inn
provement By chapter PA, laws of 1893,
an act was passed which, if valid, does
away with this requirement in case of recon-
struction of a sidewalk of the same or diff
ferent material, and Of this character was
the Improvement in question, for which there
was no petition.
1t is strenuously insisted that this act of
1893 is unconstitutional within the rule laid
down in Alexander VS.. City of Duluth, 81
Mimi, AZ. 1t was there held that any act
which adopts and extends existing special
legislation to another and new class of cases
is itself special legislation. l do not think
this act in question Is obnoxious to the OBJ
lection urged Taken up by its four cor
ners and Sifted, 1t simply provides that mere
after in no city of the state shall a petition
be required for the repair or reconstruction
of sidewalks, whether of the same or differ
ent material
In no other way is existing legislation,
general or special, in any manner affected
but the same remains precisely as before.
No existing special legislation is thereby ex-
tended to a matter. With respect to a
petition, it puts all cities on common foot
ing and makes the practice uniform through
out the state If as counsel claims, in all
cities except st. Paul the law was that no
petition was required, the act simply serves
to extend this provision of the law over this
city as well, and in that respect is valid and
within the rule laid down in the case of the
State ex rel. Baker VS.. Sullivan, Ga N. w.
Rep, 813.
This rule is decisive Of the case. But
feel quite clear that the Improvement here
made was more in the nature Of relaying an
old sidewalk than constructing a new one
and that even within the Bell charter Of
1891 no petition therefor was necessary. Hav-
ing in mind the evils the provision requiring
a petition was intended to meet and the re-
curing use of the words constructing re-
laying and repairing Of sidewalks, l think
by a new sidewalk, here used, reference
was had as to the places where before there
were no sidewalks at all.
II man efectsa a house on the site Of one
partially wholly destroyed or removed, it
is said to be rebuilding, whether he uses
the same. or different material. But a new
house is in general one erected where none
before stood, and 1t is in this sense that the
words Improvement in the nature of laying
q new sidewalk are used.