Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1906-03-19

CITY MUST PAY
FOR SHACKS
Continued from page one.)

of goods ct cetera, and if you find
from the evidence that the build
ing was constructed prior to the date
when the ordinance No. rs, known
as the fire ordinance, went into eff
feet then your verdict must be for
the plaintiffs in such sum as you
find from the evidence will reasonably
compensate them for the destruction
of the building and the damage to
the stock of goods, and damage to
the business and damage to the
leasehold estate.
Gentlemen of the jury, in this &C
ton the defendants in their answer
make reference to ordinance number
372, but | instruct you that as
matter of law such ordinance hav-
ing been passed at a special meeting
of the city council would have no
force and effect and Is void. and that
it could furnish the defendants in
of the actions complained of in plain
tiffs' complaint.
You are also instructed that as i
matter of law the resolution enacted
at the special meeting of the city
council on Monday night, October
10Th 1905, created no power which
would effect in any manner the
rights or property of these plain
tiffs, and that such resolution
woul not have the effect or force
of any ordinance, and was void as
against plaintiffs rights to begin
or complete the construction of the
building alleged to have been de-
stroyed by the city of Aberdeen and
it's officers.
l instruct you further that as
matter of law wrongful entry up
on the plaintiffs premises and inter-
ference with the plaintiffs business
or their stock of goods was a tres
pass, HUI cONti any "loHSlul uCI
committed directly with force is
trespass, though no physical contact
with the persons of the plaintiffs or
with their property was produced
and if you believe from the evidence
in this case that the city of Aberdeen
through it's officers and agents de-
PENDANTS in this action, went upon
plaintiffs premises and drove the
plaintiffs out of the possession of
their personal property or stock of
goods, such act was trespass, or
if you believe from the evidence in
this case that the defendant, the
city of Aberdeen, through it's officers
defendants in this action, with force,
though no physical contact with the
persons of the plaintiffs, or either
of them, were produced, elected or
drove them from the possession of
their property, then l instruct you
that as matter of law they were
trespassers and as such trespassers
would be liable to the plaintiffs in
this action for damages.
You are further instructed that
on the dates on which it is admitted
that the city of Aberdeen destroyed
said buildings there was no valid
ordinance of the City of Aberdeen in
effect against said building which
would authorize the city to destroy
the same for the reason that said
ordinance relied upon was not en-
acted and did not become effective
until after said building had been
constructed and was occupied.
And you are further instructed
that as matter of law the city of
Aberdeen had no right to take the
law into it's own hands or determine
whatever rights existed between the
city of Aberdeen and these plain
tiffs with reference to their property
and their business but the city of
Aberdeen was required under law
to submit these matters of dispute
to the courts to determine the rights
of the matter so long as these plain
tiffs refused and objected to the city
in any manner interfering with said
property or the rights of these plain
tiffs in connection herewith.
You are also instructed that this
building as matter of law was not
dangerous to life, health or propert;,
and that the business conducted
therein by these plaintiffs would not
and the maintenance of said build
ing was not nuisance under the
laws of the state of Washington, and
under the law it became the duty of
said city to so conduct itself through