The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1901-08-23
GASES IN
CITY COURT

Officer Thomas Magce was tne
prose utlng witness against VIII.
liam Green, colored. in the Munlc'-
pal Court this morning. Ida Bos'
tick testified that Green was III
front oil her house. 1902 Lombard
street, and USED very bad language
in the presence OF children lie
was under the influence Of liquor.
The fin: was So and costs
Robert Watson pleaded to the
charge Of trespass. About o clock
this morning Officers Hancock and
Gaynor found him asleep in a box
car beyond Third street bridge. A
fine OF IS aud costs was imposed.
Provided he gets employ to.
day the fine will be RENTED.
Kate Joyce promised to take the
pledge and will take care OF her
baby. Her husband will provide
home for her The case was
held up,
Lemuel Watson failed 10 answer
to his anne when summoned to ap.
pear on last Monday 10 the Snave.
lev case. lie was dismissed and
will be in court on Tuesday.
George Niedermaier pleaded not
guilty to the charge Of vol atlng a
city ordinance. About LILO o'clock
this morning while the fire alarm
box at Third aud Railroad avenue
was open he stopped and rang a
second alarm. Officer Hancock
was fifteen ieet away from the box
at the time,
George Christ testified he was at
the scene but did not see the alarm
pulled.
Chief Welsh Of the Fire Depart.
ment said that no second alarm
was given. In pulling thesamc box
1t was not second alarm.
Under the circumstances the case
was held up There was fire at
the Third street bridge.
The court in giving Judgment 10
the case OF Charles Pratesl, said;
This 10 an action in which the
Mavor and Council of the City Of
Wilmington charge one Charles
Pratesi with violating an ordln ance
of the said city by otstructing one
Of the public streets thereof by
placing boxes, barrels and other
thirgs thereon. AS there was no
objection TO the Information as
amended, aud no testimony offered
by the defense the whole case ha nTs
upon the timony produced Tor the
prosecutlop, From the the testi-
mony as presented there is no
doubt that PraiesI had placed or
allowed 10 be placed the things com.
planned OF, the only matter IN the
mind OF the court being whether
such objects were distractions in
the said street or merely Impeli-
ments. From careful review OF the
cases bearing on this matter 1t
seems that no positive rule can be
laid down as 10 what constitutes
an obstruction that viii! come With
in the ordinance, /. being ques-
ton to be determined by the facts
OF each patcuar case but III gener-
al it wodId seem to BE- an unauthor
:" lied Use OF the street which rend ers
IL lGSS 5llS IuA pH'GhiNb' '''' N'S
genera public. Temporary oOstruc-
lions ior the purpose Of a legitimate
business, such as a dealer putting
goods on the street for the purpose
oI removing The same INTO his store,
or coa lett Oh the side walk or
street for the purpose OF being &c
moved to a cellar, or things OF a
similar nature are permitted but
those of permanent nature or TO!
purposes OF sale are excluded.
1t has not, however. been shown
BY any testimony produced by the
defense that goods were placed IT
the street for the purpose OF sucI
removal and tor this court to hoIt
that this wouIQ not constitute al
obstruction such as contcmp'ateC
by the ordinance would mean tha
anv one could use as nuCh o! INK
street as desired tor the purpose 0
business. provided a suttclent pas
sage way was lett open. From TIN
facts OF The case j am satisfied tina
the defendant, Charles Pratcsi. II
guilty as charged n the ln!orma
ton. and / therefore impose int
OF 800, Uesldes the costs in tn
casa.