Evening journal., 1910-03-22
ORDINANCE
IS INVALID
City Court Holds Step ReeuI-
alton Unreasonable and
Sets ii Aside
CITY ASKS TIME
TO FILE APPEAL

Deputy Judge Joslyn, Of the City Court.
this morning gave an opinion declaring
the Street and Sewer resolution prohibit
ing the construction Of door steps over the
building line Of business streets Invalid
The opinion was given in the case OF
Francis r. s. Davis, who placed steps
over the building line OF No. east Front
street Argument was heard in the case
on February a. Mr.. Davis being represent
cd by former City Solicitor Robert G..
Harman. Assistant city Solicitor chaytor
to-day asked for a week in which 70 make
an appeal.
The decision is most important 10 build
ers and property owners. Judge Joslyn's
opinion in part follows;
''The defendant, Francis r. S. Davis,
was charged with violating Section Of a
resolution OF tho Street and Sewer De-
partment. passed March i6. 1905, which s
as follows;
section 2.-That hereafter no door
steps. porches. approaches to buildingT u
other structures shall bo built. mao'9 =
maintained or repaired on the sidewalks
or within the sidewalk lines fronting or
facing any building block OF this city
where a majority OF tho buildings inSsaid
building block abutting on said sidewalk
shall be used as stores. halls, hotels,
places OF business or amusement or any
such purposes or for other purposes other
than solely as places OF residence.
"By agreement Of counsel in this case.
II was admitted that tho defendant did
build door step to tho building known
as NO. East Front street. in the city OF
Wilmington on the sidewalks and within
the sidewalk lines fronting and facing tho
building block OF said city. running and
I being on the northerly side OF Front
I street. between Market and King streets,
1 the buildings In said building block ahut-
4 ting on said sidewalk. being then and
e there used as stores. places Of business
r ana such purposes and for other pur'
n poses other than solely as places OF rest
o dcnce. II was also admitted that the SAID
d door step in front Of said building did no
G extend moro than two feet, six inche
D. from the building line
'r "The defendant. by his counsel. move
y for the dismissal OF he charge agains
'e the defendant. contending that tho resolu
tion passed by the street and Sewer De
parimont was void for the following rea
sons:
First. Because said resolution was not
uniform or Impartial, but Disseminated
= and was also not certain or reasonable.
second: Because IL was In conflict with
Section 81 OF the Charter.
.'Third: Because Il was in conflict with
s Section i2i Of Charter Laws and Ordin-
ances and Section OF Chapter 70 OF the
n Third Delaware Laws. Page 166.
! -. ,.I Council .F
wilmington contended that the said reso-
luton was constitutional and uniform.
was impartial and did not discriminate
nor was II uncertain or unreasonable. and
] that the said resolution did not In any
b wise conflict with Section 81 OF the char
ter or change or conflict with Section iei
OF the Charter Laws and Ordinances. and
+ Section Of Chapter 70 OF Third Delaware
I Laws. and that the resolution passed by
the street and Sewer Department, as we'll
10 as any other ordinance OF law passed
either by council or by the Legislature In
q reference TO rights within the city Of VIII
C mington. was merely a license and not a
3, property right and citing IN support
e thereof several authorities.
at appears to tho court from the argu-
] ment Of counsel in this cause that three
/. questions arise in relation TO the constitu-
d tlonaiity OF the resolution. that is:
"First. whether said resolution is rea-
p sonable
e Second. whether tho resolution Is in
q violation OF Section OF Article Of the
e. Constitution OF the State OF Delaware,
p passed IN 1897. which IS as follows:
80 Nor shall any mans property
: be taken or applied to public use without
! the consent Of his representatives and
. without compensation being made"
"Third. whether the laws, ordinances
" and resolutions Of the Legislative bodies
: in granting the different Legislative en-
actments in relation to sidewalks in the
p city Of Wilmington were a license or .
y vested property right
r Taking up the first question as e
% whether the said resolution is reason
Il able. the court finds;
j. '"rhat il is a well settled principa
d Continued on Second Page.