Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-02-16
KNOCKED OUT AGAIN.
Tho Supreme Court Decides Once
Moro Against R, G. Wilson.
EUREKA CRY oaolSAScE VALID.
The Right Of Cities to Define the
Fire Limits Miscellaneous
Cour items.

Eureka City scored another victory
today, wlicn makes two in less than
a week. roday's victory-as in the
former oAe-came In an opinion hand.
ed down by the Supreme coutt, in the
case OF Eureka CITY vs. X. q. Wilson,
which upholds that section OF the otdl-
nances of Eureka, relating to the un.
lawful erection Of wooden buildi gs
within the flre limits.
Last we .k the 5upreme court gave
its opinion IN the case OF the same
city vs. the same deiendant, on the
question Of the validity Of the ordi.
nance pertaining to the obstruction OF
| streets. The ordinance was held to be
| good and the Judgment OF the lower
court sfiifmed.
This case is also an appeal from the
district court OF the Fifth judicial dis
| triol. Wilson was convicted in the
| Justices court at Eureka City, of the
| ofiense OF ere sting u building within
the fire limite, contrary to the ordi-
nance In such case made and pro-
vided. The ordinance def ines toe fire
| limits OF Eureka and seys that no
| wooden building shall bB erected with
In such limits, except certain small
buildings. A prOviso IL made In the
| ordinance that "if any person desires
To erect a wooden building within the
FIRE limits he shall apply to the COM
| mittee on building, nnd II their con-
| sent 10 obtained, tney may issue
permit, anu 1t shall thereupon be law
| full To eIest sucn building under sucn
| icy ulatiOns and restrictions "a the
committee may prvide." rhescom.
mittse consists OF three members oil
the city council appointed by the
| mayor.
From the conviction in the just ce's
court the deieudant Appealed 10 the
district court, where the case was tried
betore Judg Hlggius at Nephi. He
was again sujudged guilty and tineG
! SIS and cosla. From the latter juug-
ment defendant appealed TO the
Supreme court.
The principal ground upon which
Wilson based his appeal was that the
| ordinance In qu sstion was void. The
euacting CLAUSE OF the ordinances re ds
"rhe Common Council OF Eur ekA
| Guy ordaine."
| Defendant set out that the proper
title OF the council lie "City Council"
and that there 10 no sucn bouy as
the "Comnan Council"
| The opinion reius:
"rhe authority under which this
| ordinance was passed can b. fuuni III
section l755 Complied Laws OF Utan
| 1855, which provides that the city
council shall have p3wer among
hinge as foilOws:
To define tue Are limits anu pre-
scribe limits within which no building
shall be constructed exGept brick,
stone or other uneUnbustibie material,
| without permission anu 10 cause the
destruction or removal OF any building
CONSTRUCTED or repaifed in violation OF
any ordinance; anu TO cause all build.
ings anu Enclosures which may be IN
dangerous state to be put IN a safs con.
| ditioD.
"Fhis provision OF tine statute con-
fers upon the city Coubcii OF any
incorporated city In thIs STATE the
power TO establish fire limits und to
pr hibit within suon limits, with.
out permission, the erection any
| building, with cOmbustlble material,
| leaving all persona Tree To erect build
ings Of brick, stone or other iucum,
bustible material within sucn limits.
Referring to the PROV 80 tbe court say:
"By audlng the proviso, however,
the council has attempted to confer
upon committee, not only an RUs1-
ute power, which would enable 1t t.
defeat thu very object OF the ordinance
at It's mere will aud pleasure, but also "a
legislative power winch would enable
1t TO perform duty imposed upon the
council itself by the statue, anu that ls
to provide regulations and restrictions,
to control tue granting OF permission
according to the provision OF the ordi-
nance. The
proviso cannot be justified as reason.
able exercise Of the authority con.
lerred by the statute, anu Is void.
"lhe TACT that the prDvisJ IL void,
however, affords NO sufficient reason
to declare the whole ordinance in