Evening star., 1905-10-18
JUDGMENT REVERSED
COURT OF APPEALS SETS ASIDE
POLICE COURT DECISION.
Case Of Policeman Lewis demanded
for Rehearing-Lower Court Sus-
tained In johnson Case.

The Court OF Appeals of the District of
| Columbia, through Chief Justice Shepard,
yesterday handed down its opinion revers-
ing the Judgment rendered by Judge KIM
ball Of the Police Court last summer in the
case of the District OF Columbia against
Percy t. Lewis, a private of the police
force. who was charged in the Police Court
with having fired his revolver upon the pub
lie streets without having obtained from
| the major and superintendent OF police a
permit to do So In violation Of the police
regulations of the District of Columbia.
The case is one of considerable impor-
tance and the decision OF the Court of APP
peals has been awaited with interest by the
the ruling of Judge Kimball had been up
held by the Court of Appeals 1t would have
been necessary for the District Commission
ers TO revise number of the police regula-
tions now in force and under which prose-
cutions have beed made for many years.
When the defendant. Lewis, was brought
before Judge Kimbau in the Police Court
he moved the court to quash the informa-
don filed against him because the police
regulation which he was charged with hav-
ing violated was. as he alleged, an unrea-
sonabie and an illegal delegation of power,
and, therefore. void. Judge Kimball sus-
tanned the defendants motion and smissea
the case, and the District appealed to the
Court of Appeals. The case was argued
before the Court of Appeals about ten days
ago by Mr.. James Francis Smith, assistant
corporation counsel, representing the Dis
trict. and by Messrs Lambert and Baker
attorneys for Private Lewis.
Inc police regulation in question pro-
Vides that no person shall discharge fire.
arms in the city limits, without first hav-
ing obtained permit so to do from the
major and superintendent of police Of the
District
Unanimous Opinion.
Chief Justice Shepard delivering the una
nimous opinion of the Court of Appeals,
said, in part:
ut is not seriously denied that the SUBJ
1ect matter Of the prohibition of the dis
charge of firearms IN the city is one rea-
sonably. within the police powers conferred
upon the municipal authorities, but it is
contended that that power was not reason
ably and legally exercised in the regulation
aforesaid. The objection to its validity Is
founded on the clause which gives the SUI
perlhtendent of police the power to permit
the discharge of firearms upon application;
without defining the conditions of his exer-
else of discretion. The contention is that
the clause in question is not only an at
tempt to delegate legislative powers to the
superintendent of police but also to COM
mt the entire matter to his arbitrary dis
cYetion. T.
I'VE are of the opinion that the Police
Court erred in sustaining the objection to
tn, information. The regulation itself con-
tdiiiS tiie ana QeieSateS no SuCn
at rthority to the superintendent of police.
Apprehending that special conditions might
arise which could not reasonably be antici-
pated and provided for. under which 1t
would be reasonable and expedient to per-
nit the discharge of firearms and other ex-
plcsives. special power of permission there
OF. to meet such contingencies, was dele
gated to the municipal agent whose parti-
cuar duty 1t Is to look after the public se-
curity. The general power of regulation
and prohibition included the power to de-
teImine under what conditions the prohibit
ed act might be permitted and the power Of
permission was an administrative function
delegated to the superintendent of police to
effectuate the purpose of the regulation
That the discretion committed to the
superintendent of police In respect of grant
ing permission to discharge firearms under
certain conditions of necessity or expedi-
ency apparent to him might. in instances.
/ be arbitrarily exercised does not render the
regulations unreasonable and therefore In
valid. CBarnes vs.; D. c., "a Appeals, 459,
460.)
1T follows that the Judgment must be re-
versed. with costs, and the cause is remand
ed with direction to overrule the motion to
quash the Information and to proceed with
the trial In a manner not inconsistent with
this opinion"