The times., 1898-12-18
GROWING ROOSTER Wins
More Than One Person Must
Make Complaint.
ATTORNEY THOMAS'S VIEWS
An Entire NeighbOrhood Must BE
Annoyed - Some BrilIfantPolice
Regulations "Needs No Amend
ment,- Says the Legal Adviser-
No Change VIII he Made I'm the
Rules.

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. a local attorney.
Attorney Myers wrote to the Commits
sioners, stating that. the present regula-
ton was inadequate to remedy the all
legged annoyance. He complained that the
owner of rooster could not be fined for
maintaining the source of such an an
noyance unless complainant could in
duce the whole neighborhood to rise up
in arms and make a case against the
owner under the police regulations.
In an opinion rendered yesterday, At
torney S. T. 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 Commis-
sioners, contends that the change of the
regulation to its present form in 1888, de-
stroyed the relief afforded. since it 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 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
Kimballs judgment on this regulation
continued Attorney Thomas, What the
judge holds in prosecutions for growing
roosters Is that If the rooster annOys n
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.
II think this is reasonable and fair
Interpretation of the regulation. AS the
regulation stood in 1892, when II read any
person. it was in the power of one person
to make ii an instrument of oppression.
and l am informed that It was changed
for that very reason SO as to read TO the
annoyance of any neighborhood.' DO
not think il unreasonable for one who
complains of a growing rooster to be re-
ouired to support his complaint with
witness besides himself My opinion Is
the regulation in question: should be al
lowed to stand as it is. 1t does not neeu
amendment
James l.. Pugh, jr., who is assistant
to handle all Growing rooster cases
brought into the Police Court. says that
the regulations could, of course. be
changed to make II possible for one per-
son to complain against the nuisance
LAS they were originally" he said, the
regulations gave person the authority
to 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. The court holds. under the reguia-
| ton as it now reads, that the complaints
| OF a person, or persons, from two sepa-
rate houses are necessary. j think the
regulation should stand as II is. or else
| prohibit the keeping of roosters In the
city limits"
| The Commissioners have approved the
| recommendat tions of Attorney Thomas,
| and will not alter the regulation. Local
| roosters have reason to be festive ana
| may indulge in considerable growing to-
| day.