Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1909-12-28
STAND
OWNERS TO FIGHT
REMOVAL ORDER
Superintendent Shipman Is Motif
: fled He. Will Be Held Liable
for Damages.

Notice was served todayNo Superin'
tendent of Works Charles M Shipmar
by Eugene Dotto, representing the
estate of Peter Zazzali, that if the stand
at the northwest corner of Market ano
Broad streets is torn down his clients
will hold Mr.. Shipman personally re-
sponsible for any damages which may
result.
Il have just received the letter of Mr.
Dotto.'' said Mr.. Shioman today. land
do not care to discuss it. l have turned
it over to City Counsel Nugent."
did the Board of Works direct yot
to do away with these stands?" Mr.
Shipman vas asked.
mo. l took the cours l did of my
own v%olition,', he replied.
Following is Mr.. Dotto's letter to the
superintendent, written under date OF
December %:
Il desire to call your attention to the
fact that under sections 543 and 544
of the revised city ordinances o are
not justified to summary remove OF
cause to be removed the fruit-stands
that have existed in front of proper
ties, as you claim that you intend to
do on the third of January next, as |
consider that the aforementioned Sec
lions are void and of no effect in these
cases whatsoever.
"In behalf of some of the legal rep
resentatives of the estate of Peter
Zazzali, deceased, who have, and for
the last thirty-five years have had, a
stand on the northwest corner of Mar
ket and Broad streets, l notify you
that my clients will hold you PERSONAL
1N 1iohIn f0ra INV do me which Won
may directly or indirectly cause them
by carrying into execution your orders
and thereby summarily removing or
causing to be removed said fruit
stand at the said corne
81 further desire to state that by
several decisions rendered in this State,
and in the several States, n in the
United States Courts, you nor any
other officer of the city of Newark, have
no right under the city ordinance to
take private property without COM
pensation and without due process of
law, and it is a doctrine too we'll settled
in this State that the rights of the
property-owner in such instance can
not be affected without affording him
an opportunity to be heard, which was
not done in these cases.
THE stand which l refer to is not
built on the level of the adjoining side
walk, but wholly upon a raised cellar
covering of stone and iron, which sex-
tends all around the building on the
northwest corner of Market and Broad
streets, and is not used for the passage
to and fro for the public, but, rather,
for the use of the owner of said prop
erty. 1t does not interfere with or OBJ
struct people passing on the sidewalk.
1t cannot be claimed with any show
of reason or justice that this stand,
under these circumstances, is a
nuisance or obstruction on said side
walk, which may be summarily re-
moved as you contemplate. There are
other proceedings for the city to take
to determine first the validity of the
ordinance. and not take advantage of
1t n cause thousands of dollars dam
ages to hundreds of its citizens, when
the Supreme Court may find it to be
void and of no effect whatsoever.
"At Newton, Justice Minturn a few
days ago charged the grand jury as fol-
lows: Because a man had been elected
or appointed to a public office he had
no right to assume that he was the
boss of the people, instead of a servant
Therefore, I believe that you have no
right to assume that the ordinance
aforesaid is sufficient for you to take
away such property rights and privi-
leges from every pro~perty-owner in the
city of Newark. Yours respectfully,
EUGENE DOTTO, attorney"