Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-02-15
SNOW AND ICE LAW
DECISION OF MOMENT FROM
COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion writ
ten by Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard, handed
down today, denied a petition of John w.
Morris for the writ of prohibition to re-
strain Judge Scott of the Police Court from
proceeding against the petitioner under the
regulation promulgated by the Commission
of the District of Columbia the 7th of
last month, requiring the removal of snow
from sidewalks
In his petition, which was filed late yes
terday, through Attorney Leo Simmons,
Mr.. Morris explained that he is the owner
of lot II. block 81, Columbia Heights. He
added that yesterday he was, on an infor-
nation taken before Judge Scott upon the
charge of violating the Commissioners reg
ulation referred to in not cleaning the
snow from the sidewalk in front of his va
cant lot. Mr.. Morris set forth in his petit
ton that he moved the Police Court to
quash the information upon the ground that
it was void for uncertainty and inequality;
that the Commissioners of the District Of
Columbia were without authority to pro-
mitigate such an ordinance, and that the
alleged ordinance is unconstitutional and
the Police Court without jurisdiction to try
him.
The Police Court overruled the motion
and set the case for hearing the Goth in
slant
In passing on the petition the Court of
Appeals. among other things, said:
Whether the invalidity of a regulation
about to be enforced in that Police) court
presents such a case of excess of jur1sdic-
ton would justify the issue of the writ
presents a question of difficulty which the
eXigency of the present case does not re-
quire us to determine. The validity of the
regulation is a question of law which the
Police Court must necessarily determine IN
the exercise of its jurisdiction of the sub
ject matter. If decided adversely to the
petitioner, and his conviction follows, he
may apply for writ of error to review the
judgment. The petitioner, having been
prosecuted in one case only, cannot be ser1-
ously injured by leaving him to bring his
case before this court, if occasion shall re-
quire, in the ordinary course.
LAS there seems TO be some doubt OF
the authority of the Commissioners to enact
the new regulation providing penalty for
the failure to remove snow and ice from
the sidewalks of the city of Washington,
and the question is one of general import
ance to householders, the suspension of
trials for the infraction of the regulation
until that question can be finally deter
mined would probably relieve the hardship
of the situation without injury to the in
terests of the public or of individuals.
For the reasons given, the writ prayed
for is refused, and the petition dismissed
with COSTS
To a Star reporter Attorney Simmons
said today that when it was learned that
Mr.. Morris was taking steps to contest the
validity of the Commissioners snow regula-
ton the assistant corporation counsel at
the Police Court nole pressed the charge,
thereby rendering it impossible for Mr..
Morris to do anything further in the mat
ter Attorneys Simmons added that he
has been told it is the intention of the au-
thorites not to press a charge of failure
to remove snow from the sidewalk against
any owner who is disposed to carry the
matter to the Court of Appeals and there
attack the validity of the regulation.