Waterbury Democrat., 1902-05-13
THAT PLUMBING CASE.
Attorney o'Neill Says Aldermen Had
 No Right to Make the Law.

No Right to Make the Law.
 The city ordinance regarding plumbing and the taking out of per mits for such work is liable to make a lot of trouble for the plumbing ln- spector and the city court, the latter deciding this morning that it was very doubtful if the board of aldermen had power to enact such an ordinance. Judge Burpee it was who spoke thus:
 The case against Jeremiah Devlne, master plumber for the Plume & At wood company was before the court charged with having violated the above named ordinance. He was de- tended by Attorney O'Neill. Assist ant Plumbing Inspector Walker testi- fled that the firm of Plume S Atwood was putting in an addition to it's sew age system and enlarging it as well. That was practically all the testimony given. There was no defense. But Mir O'Neill contended that the board of aldermen had no authority to en- act such an ordinance as that under which prosecution of Devine was ln- stituted A copy of the charter was procured and Mir O'Neill went over all of it in a vain quest to find where the board of aldermen got power to enact such ordinances. There were num- Der of places in the charter where the board of aldermen was given power to sIippres nuisances that may arise out of imperfect connection with the sew age system. but even these MT O'Neill doubted were sufficiently explicit, be- cause he said, an ordinance must be so plain and so reasonable that even the duIlest must be able to comprehend it. He was emphatic in saying that no one had the power to go into anOther's house and say that water or sewer pipe shall be constructed this way or that, under the present ordinances. The city of course could empower men to inspect the public system of sewage or to look into connections made between houses and the public system, but not inside private door,. The charter was explicit on that.
 The city ordinances must be valid and to be valid they must be plain and reasonable. They must not be trap for the unwary where a person may be caught mapping. They must not be open to misconstruction. At present the ordinances in question are full of doubt and misapprehension. They say that one must not ''alter" or sscOnstruct." In this case there is not alteration or new construction made or thought of. If the ordinances said repairs that would be another thing. But it cannot mean anything of the kind than what 1t does mean. It says "alter'' or construct but look at the difference in the meaning of these words. If the ordinance means any thing it means that plumbing must be done in skillful and proper way. But does it mean that man must get permit every time he desires to change a faucet or make any change in the plumbing of his house? The object of an ordinance is of course for the public benefit not to hamper or an noy anyone. This complaint anyway does not come within under the ordi- nance, and on that account 1t is good | for nothing. Judge Burpee replied | that aside from the ordinance, he | would have to find Devine not guilty. | The ordinance does not cover repairs | or changes Mir O'Neill said that if | anybody is guilty it is the corporation | that employees Mir Deyine. Devine did | not do any of the plumbing mentioned in the complaint. He is the master l PAOAAOCA aA4O SQSAtLC1 JuA ISISly oversees the work done, therefore he had no more to do with it than any | member of the company
 The court then remarked Hat the language of the ordinance does rot | cover the circumstances on which the | cOrrr'aint is based. He said it was very easy to make the necessary change presuming that the board of | aldermen had power to enact such or- dinances which he greatly doubted. The accused was thereupon discharg- ed.
 Charles J.. Price plead guilty to keeping place that had the reputa ton of being a place where liquors were sold and to selling liquors with out a license. He was fined $40 and costs on each complaint. Prices place is on Dublin street
 Dentist $. w. Chipman charged with breach of the peace had his case continued until tomorrow morn ing. It is said that he threatened some man with a razor.
 John O'Brien was charged with keeping open his saloon at 346 Bald win street last Sunday and doing
  case heard against John Horrigan yes terday and O'Brien was found not guilty. Judge Burpee remarking that he could not conscientiously find O'Brien guilty in view of Horrigan, the bartender having been punished yesterday. He was defended by At torney Guilfoile
 Daniel Shannahan of Mill street was also charged with keeping open his saloon and doing business last Sunday. The defense was conducted by Judge Lowe. The complainant was Officer O'Hearn who testified to seeing some men enter the place ard leave it. Shannahan was found guilty on both complaints and was fined $50 and costs on each. He gave notice of an appeal.
 COURT ROOM FILTERED.