The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-03-30
DEFINED IN A DECISION OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT.
SUBJECT To LEGISLATIVE WILL.
City Governments Have Only Such
Powers as are Expressly Given Them
or as are Necessary to Exercise
Them-A Thing Not Per Sc a Nui-
sance Is Not Made One by a City Or
dinance Declaring It to be such.
Other Supreme Court Decisions.
Especial IT, The Messenger.)

SRSSA
Raleigh, n. c., March 27.-The SUI
preme court today in a notable case
from Raleigh, that of the State VS..
Higgs, grants a new trial. The ques-
ton at issue was whether an electric
sign over a sidewalk could be ordered
removed.
The court says a municipal corpora
ton, being the creature of the legisla-
ture, has only such powers as are ex-
pressly given it, or such as are Incl
dent to, or necessary in the execution
of those expressly delegated.
A municipal corporation holds the
fee in the public streets in trust for
the use mo benefit Of the public, and
the mayor and aldermen, as agents
of the city, are authorized to keep the
streets and sidewalks in such condi-
ton as to best serve the public well
fare; but in exercising this authority
they cannot arbitrarily interfere with
the private rights of citizens when not
demanded by public interest.
The property owner has an ease
ment in his frontage upon a public
street, subject to the government of
the city in the interest and for the
benefit of the public. A thing not per
Sc a nuisance is, not rendered a nuis-
ance by an ordinance of the city de-
claring it a nuisance.
A sign hanging fourteen feet above
the sidewalk and projecting four feet,
safely constructed and securely at
tached to the wall of the building,
cannot be lawfully condemned as "a
projection or construction whereby
the free and safe passage Of persons is
hindered, delayed, obstructed or in
- 49,
Of such sign, who refuses to remove
the same, cannot be adjudged guilty
of a misdemeanor for violating the
city ordinance prohibiting the pro-
jecting and s~uspending of signs over
the sidewalks Of the city.
City authorities may prohibit the
projecting Of SUCH signs over side
walks as are dangerous or such as
tend to impede travel of footmen, and
the rdinance in question is void only
in so far as it violates this rule.
A city ordinance prescribing a fine
of $50 or imprisonment for thirty days
as the penalty for violation thereof, is
not void for uncertainty.
Opinions were handed down as fol-
lows by the supreme court: Graves VS..
Barrett, from Moore, affirmed; Muse
VS.. Caddell, from Moore, new trial;
Little VS.. Ratliff, from Arson, affirm
ed; State VS.. Carter, from Robson,
no error; Terrell VS.. Broadway, from
Lenoir, remanded; Lumber Company
VS.. Hines, from Jones, reversed; OAR
den VS.. Blount, from Greene, reversed;
Cheek VS.. Building and Loan Associa-
ton, from Durham, two cases, decid-
ed in favor of plaintiff; Greer VS..
Brown, from Orange, affirmed; Keen
o VS.. Telegraph Company, from
Guilford, new trial; State VS.. Green,
from Durham, reversed; State VS..
Higgs, from Wake, error; Strause VS..
Insurance Company, from Pitt, af-
firmed; State VS.. Davis, from Edge.
combe, no error.
The following cases were disposed of
by per curiam order, to-wit: Worth
VS.. Lancashire, from Cumberland, af-
firmed: McCaSkill VS.. Lancashire,
from Cumberland, affirmed.
The special committee recommends
to the aldermen hat Raleigh own and
operate the electric lighting plant.