The evening times., 1898-12-19
A VICTORY FOR THE
Growing ROOSTERS
More Than One Person Must
Make Complaint.
ATTORNEY THOMAS VIEWS
An Entire Neig#b0rh0Od Must Be
Annoy d.
~PoIice Regulations Need No Amend
lnent," Says the Legal Adviser-So
Change viii BE Made.

A complete victory has been won by
the growing roosters in the matter OF
the complaint which was recently enter
ed against their daybreak serenades by
T. Percy Myers, local attorney.
Attorney Myers wrote to the Commits
sioners, stating that the present regula-
ton was inadequate to remedy the al
legged annoyance He complained that the
owner of a rooster could not be fined for
maintaining the source OF such an an
noyance unless a complainant could in
1uce the whole neighborhood to rise up
in arms and make a case against the
owner under the police regulations.
In an opinion rendered recently, At
torney S. r. Thomas. the legal adviser
TO the District Commissioners, rules that
the rooster Growing" portion of the po-
lice regulations are effective and need no
amending.
Mr. Myers" he informs the Commits
sioGers. contends that the change Of the
regulation TO its present form in 1898. de-
stroyed the relief afforded, since 1t sub
stituted for the word person the word
'neighborhood.' and that Judge Kimball
of the Police Court, has interpreted the
amended regulations to mean that the
growing rooster must annoy a whole
neighbOrhood, and not a single household
in order to make the owner liable to the
penalty Of the regulation.
Mr. Myers is mistaken as TO Judge
Kimbalrs judgment on this regulation"
continued Attorney Thomas. What the
judge holds an prosecutions for growing
rOosters is that If the rooster anROys a
person or persons in two separate houses
IN one neighborhOod the owner is liable;
not that the rooster must be shown to
annoy the whole neighborhood.
4 think this is A reasonable and fair
Interpretation of the regulation. As the
regulation stood in 1892. when it read any
person. Il was in the power OF ore person
10 make il an instrument Of oppression,
and I am informed that il was changed
for that very reason so as to read to the
annoyance Of any neighborhood. 90
not think Il unreasonable for one who
complains of a growing rooster 20 be re-
quired to support his complaint with
witness besides himself. My opinion Is
the regulation in question should be al
lowed 10 stand as it is. ii does not need
amendment
James /. Pugh, jr.. who Is assistant
District attorney. and, whose duty IT Is
10 handle al growing rooster cases
brought into the Police Court says that
the regulations could. of course BE-
changed to make it possible for one per
son to complain against the nuisance
As they were originally, he said, the
regulations gave a person the authority
10 have the nuisance abated on his swear
ing that he was annoyed by the Growing.
This. however. was changed and made
the matter a neighbOrhood complaint in
stead of the complaint of a single per-
son. TIE court holds, under the regula-
7ion as il now reads, that the complaints
Of a person or persons, from two sepa-
rate houses are necessary. i think the
regulation should stand as ii is, or else
prohibit the keeping of roosters in the
city limits
The Commissioners have approved the
recommendations Of Attorney Thomas,
and viii not alter the regulation. Local
raosters have reason to be festive and
may indulge in considerable growing to-
1ay.