Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-19
UNDER THE SMOKE LAW
Local Hotel Proprietor Charged With
Maintaining a Nuisance.
A Test of TIC R1ea'"'ion. De
m"rrer Fiis an overruled-
Evidence 8. nitted.

The case of o. C. Staples hotel propri-
| etor. charged with an alleged viola ton of
| the smoke law; was called for trial in the
Police Court today. Mr. Woodward, coun-
sci for defendant. Stiled a demurrer to the
| Information, settifSg forth:
That said information does not charge
that the emission of smoke into the open
air from the chimney of the defendant
constituted common or public nuisance
| to the great damage of all the citizens of
| the District of Columbia
THAT SAID Information does not charge
that the emission of smoke from the stack
OF the defendant was continuous land not
sporadic), and to the common nuisance of
the whole community
That the Information IL indefinite and
uncertain as to the length of time smoke
was emitted from the stack of the defend
ant.
That the information does not charge
In what manner whether to public health.
property OF otherwtse) the emission of
smoke from the stack of the defendant con-
st1tuted public nuisance"
Judge Scott oyerruled the demurrer after
trial proceed.
Prosecuting Attorneys Statement.
Counsel noted an exception to the courts
| ruling.
Mr Mullowny, for the government, made
an opening argument. The law, he said.
under which the prosecution is instituted,
Is an act OF Congress that is intended to
make Washington the cleanest city in the
universe. He then read the law.
Does this relate to locomotiveS?'' in
quired juror
The prosecuting attorney answered In the
negative. He explained that the law re-
iates to buildings where boilers are used.
Fac SAID ne expected to show that Mr..
Staples violated the law at the National
Hotel. October 10 Is the date of the alleged
violation.
DR.. Lynch of the health department testi-
ned that on the day charged he went the
roof OF the District building and saw dense
volumes of black and gray smoke Issuing
from the smokestack of the National Hotel
Did you see any smoke coming from
other bulldings?" asked Mr.. Woodward
Il object said Prosecuting Attorney Null
lowry.
Might Have Been Mistaken.
Mr.. Woodward said a few days ago he
noticed volumes of smoke in the streets
and he observed that it came from the
| locomotives at the Baltimore and Potomac
depot. He said it was possible that smoke
! from this source may have been mistaken
! for smoke alleged to have issued from the
hotel chimney.
! Witness explained that he watched the
| smoke coming from the National Hotel
| stack for about fifteen minutes. He paid
| no attention to other buildings
| George A. Howe of the health department
| gave similar testimony. Inspector Butts
| also gave testimony. He was with the pre-
| ceding witnesses at the time the observa-
| ton was made.
Assistant Building Inspector Lawson tes-
| tined to the presence Of two boilers in the
| National Hotel. He could not say that
there was not a understanding device
connected with the smosestack In question
This closed the case for the prosecution
and Mr.. Woodward moved that the court
instruct the jury to find a verdict for the
defendant. He did this because, as he
claimed. the government failed to show
that the emission of smoke constituted a
public or common law nuisance
Motion ,OverruIed.
The court overruled the motion, and
counsel called witnesses for the defend
ant.
Mr.. Horatio Browning testified that he
had been IN business In the vicinity of the
National Hotel since 1856 He was asked
II the emission of smoke from the hotel
chimney had ever proved to be a nuisance
and Mr. Mullowny objected to this line of
proof The question was being argued
when this report closed.