The times., 1901-03-15


the Case OF the Keyes Premises
Tax Exemption of the nrookIand
BAPTIST Church - Current Notes.
Andrew b. puvaU. the Attorney for the
District Yesterday submitted TO he Com
ruissioners his opinion upon The COM
municatio1 OF the Health Omcer relative
to the unsanuarv condition of premises
7210l street northwest. by reason Of foul
water 4ccumulatug in the cellar because
Of an obstruction in the sewer.
The particular question asked of the
Attorney boy the Commissioners was
whether the notice mailed TO the owner
was sulaeieut 10 authorize proceedings
under section 26 of the ordnance to re-
wise. consolidate. and amend the ordl-
nancos of the Board of Health. etc
1t appears" says the Attorney, that
the tenant of the premises was notified
10 abate the nuisance. and, having failed
TO do so. was prosecuted in the Police
Court. where the case was dismissed
Thereupon. on February l. 1901, the
Health officer mailed a notice to the
owner. Mrs Martha A. keyCs, Linden,
NFd calling attention to the exist
erce Of the nuisance in said premises
and notifying her to abate the same WIN
in four days after date, and informing
her that if She failed so TO do the Health
perartment would proceed to cause Its
abatement and coilect the cost IN the
manner provided by law. The receipt
for this letter was returned to the Health
Office signed Martha A. Keyes, by Frank
r. Keycs.
Section 26 Of the ordinance to revise
consolidate. and amend the ordinances OF
the Board Of Health. TO declare what
shall he deemed nuisances injurious 10
health. and TO provide for the removal
thereof 2 Supl. Stat, S06), relates solely
to such things as are declared thereby
"a he nuisances: the only paragraph in
the ordinances embracing such case as
the one under consideration Is paragraph
Q. hut this paragraph with two others)
npress expressly refused to legallze Dy
its Joint resolution legaliZing the heaiJh
ordinance approved August Is. 1874 &
SUM Stat, 306). There does not appear
10 be any other ordinance or regulation
declaring such a condition as the one
under consideration TO be nuisance.
A like condition upon an open lot IS
declared 10 be a nuisance by section l
of the 1egaIized ordinances.
Under the joint resolution, approved
February 26, 1892, the Commissioners are
empowered to make regulations neces-
they are therefore authorized to make
regulations which would reach such a
case as the present
The Commissioners are also given
power by the act Of Congress authoriz-
ing the appointment of an inspector Of
plumbing. approved april %. 1892, to
make regulations for the maintenance in
good order of house sewers; but neither
the plumbing nor other regulations ap
pear TO reach the case, even for the pur-
poses Of abatement.
The Health Officer has power only to
enforce regulations. However, If the
condition Of the premises is such as to
endanger the public health. i. e., the
health OF persons in the vicinity: or is
offensive by reason of foul Odors, to per
sons who may be in the vicinity. pub
lie nuisance is considered to exist even
though in a private dwelling house
Wood on Nuisances,' 572-3
And the proper authorities of the Dis
trict may abate such a nuisance in
summary manner, though no authority
for that purpose Is given by statute
Hart vs. Mayor. Albany. 8 Wend., 55l;
Baker VS. Boston. Z Pick, 1S+
1t is said In Wood on Nuisances,' II:
There can be 10 question but where
nuisance exists within it's corporate linn
its that is clearly q nuisance at common
law or by statute that is detrimental to
the health Of the inhabitants, il may be
abated by authorities, but il must be
nuisance at common law and one which
any person injured thereby might law
fully abate of his own motion, or, in the
absence of express authority statutory
given the removal or abatement of the
nuisance would be unlawful. Where the
thing abated IS clearly a nuisance and
one which affects the health Of the city,
the abatement may be made by the au-
thorities or by any person injured there
b.. The common law in such case comes
in aid of the authorities, and they are
justified in the act, not because they are
officials II the city, but because they are
citizens injured by the thing abated'
The notice given TO the owner. Mrs.
lleyes by the Health officer i'm the pres
cnt case, has no peculiar legal effect 50
as 10 fix any penal liability upon her.
but having actual notice Of the nuisance
IL became her legal duty to remove the
same. and failing to do so, and thus rem
dering II necessary for the authorities
TO incur the expense Of removal an ac-
tion on the case in assUmpsit would prob
ably lie for the recovery Of the expenses
1ucuTred-Ou the promise implied by law
IL was such an action as this that was
brought against the Metropolitan Rail
expense Of paving streets. etc.
But in this action against her nothing
would be presumed in favor Of the Dis
trict. the owner would be entitled to a
trial Of the question of the existence of
The nuisance. the necessity Of abatement
without proceedings in court. and whether
the expense incurred was rsaSoua bile J. o.
that nothing more was done than to abate
the nuisance.
1T. therefore. appears 10 me that no
good purpose would be served in making
this case "a precedent for future action.
because the remedy for future cases
would be more effective by framing a reg
uatIou 20 cover such cases"
Richard A. Ford, in behalf O.. the Brook
nd Baptist Church. recently wrote to
the Commissioners requesting that taxes
and assessments against lots u and j.
block 13. Leighton & Pairo's subdivision
oi Brookiand. be- Cancelled and the prop
eIty bo listed as exempt from taxation.
AR. Ford $ letter. together with the