Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-08-16
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
ViRCINIAN-PiLOT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
STATE v. HILL.
Supreme Court OF North Carolina
June II, 1900.


supreme Court OF North Carolina.
June II. 1900.
"A CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRING
ALL SCAVENGER WORK TO RE
DONE by LICENSED SCAvEN-
GERS, Filming PRICES, &C. is. IN
THE ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT
IL Is REASONABLY NECESSARY
AND JUST. INVALID. SO FAR AS
II APPLIES TO y DEFENDANT
PROSECUTED FOR DOING SUCH
WORK WITHOUT A LICENSE.
The court saws:
ne real point in the case is not very
St 800 ~ presented by the prayer for in
S,ruction, but it clearly appears from
tne case itself The prisoner is not
cnarSeu with carrying on the business
vi puDlic scavenGer, but simply with
GOING the work for>one man; and il is
cuiiitteu III the argument that the cf-
rect OF the ordinance would be to pre-
Vent the owner himself from rcmov-
ing the refuse from his own premises.
rms Is clearly an interference with II
natural right. and. while this may be
allowable on the ground of public ne
cesSity. some such necessity must aD-
pear. and the ordinance must be reas-
ohabie in it's provisions. Is the ordi-
nance under consideration reasonable
IN its provisions. or just in it's results ?
we are compelled TO think that il is
not. 1t takes away from the citizen
IL natural and a necessary right with
out apparent necessity, and substitutes
nothing adequate to take its place.
Inc owner cannot clean his own prem
Uses, no matter how filthy they may
become, and the public scavengcr can
not be made to clean them oftencr
than once month without an order
from the superintendent of health.
MS case does not question the right
or the city to clean all closets. or to
have them cleaned or kept clean: but
ii involves the right of the owner him.
self To clean up. If the ordinance has
that cffcct,-and the State claims that
IL has such an efTect.-then it is void,
at least pro tanto. In this particular
the effect of the ordinance Is not to
keep the city clean, but rather to keep
it dirty, for the time being. 1t is Il
matter of common knowledge that re-
fuse matter quickly decays during the
summer months. and 1t can scarcely
be contended that merely a monthly
cleaning is sufficient to keep a closet
in healthy condition in warm eli
mate. Are the rates allowed to the
public scavenger reasona BILE? If the
ordinance were otherwise valid. we
would hesitate to interfere with it on
this ground alone, and we do not de-
eide il as n matter OF law; but 10 us
IL SttHlS
We do not say that the defendant. OF
even the owner of the premises had
the right to clean out their closets in
manner offensive to their neighbors
or detrimental to the public health and
comfort. They would be subject ia
such reasonable regulations as were
necessary to attain these ends. Nor
do we say that the city might not, un-
der reasonable regulations. require any
one To take out license before acting
as II public scavcnEcr, or even do the
work through Its own officers. Such
cases are not before us. We are con-
strained to say that this ordinance.
construed as it appears to us, is not
shown In he reasonable. necessary. or
just: and, therefore, being In dcroga-
ton of common right. must be held in
valid in its application to the case at
bar. Reversed.