Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1912-07-06
CASE Of MARSHALL
VS., AbRAMSON.
Justice Cation Sustains Plaintiffs and
Imposes Fine Upon
Defendant
SIDEWALK IS OBSTRUCTED.
Court Holds that Accused is Encroach-
ing Upon the Passagcway by Plac-
ing Showcase Beyond Limits.
Justice Ii. B. Cation Of the Police

Justice Ii. B. Cation Of the Police
Court. this morning handed down
Il decision in the case of J. a. Mar
shall L Bro. VS.. b. Abramson, sus-
tanning the plaintiif in his contention
the sidewalk with showcase. He
also imposed Il fine Of five dollars up
on AbramSon for obstructing the side
walk in order that an appeal might
be taken from his decision should
the defendant feel disposed to fur
ther contest the case.
Marshall Bro, it will be rcmem-
bcred. several weeks ago, had Abb
Ransom cNed TO appear in the Police
Court to show cause why he should
not be fined for obStructing the side
walk with Il showcase the plaintiffs
alleging that the showcase obscured
the view of their window on the east
AbramSon, in the meantime, SwOre
out warrant against c. b. Marshall
for placing the doorstepS Of his resi-
drnce On King street. between Alfred
and Patrick. beyond the prescribed
limits on the sidewalk. Justice Ca
ton merged the two cases. In his
opinion he says:
King street. as dedicated to the
public use is SiXty-SiX feet wide from
building liac to building line. or
this width, fourteen and half feet
on each side is devoted TO sidewalks
for the use of pedestrians, while that
portion of the street used for road
WAY is lhirty-scven feet in width. For
many years, the City Council, through
its building regulations, has permit
ted abutting property owners TO en-
croach upon the sidewalks distance
OF twenty inches for the purpose OF
the erection OF show windows, and IN
the case Of steps, 4 somewhat great
or cncroachment is allowed. While
there are. exceptions to the rule, Il
large majority OF the properly own
crs on that street have made use OF
the privilege granted under these
building regulations. The windows
i'm the building occupied by Mr. Abb
ramson are approximately twenty
inches beyond the building line, and
the occupant Of the building has so
placed a show case that it extends
a little more than fifteen inches be-
yond these windows. The question
arises as 10 whether or not this show
case is such an obstruction or the
public highway rs is prohibited by
law.
In the case OF Richmond vs.. Smith.
10l Va. page 1Gl and other Virgin
ia decisions Oh the same line, the law
governing Instructions to highways
in this state is laid down. With
our quoting these decisions in full,
the Court holds in substance that
the public highways belong from
side TO side and from end to end to
the public: that the public arc enti-
tied to not only free papssagc along
the highway, but to a free passage
along any portion of ii not III ac!u-
al use by some other traveller, and
that any unauthorized obstruction
which necessarily impedes or lncom-
modes the lawful use of the high
way is 4 public nuisance.
As stated above, for many years
the CITY building regulations nave
provided for the use of portion OF
the sidewalk for steps and snow
windows. 1t is not necessary to DIS
cuss the legality of these regulations
II is sufficient to say that the PRIV
ileges granted Hereunder have work
ed to the advantage or disadvantage
Of no one person or set OF persons
The general exercise Of these prlvl'
leges has not seriously impedcd traVe
on the sidewalks. and there Is Ne
real demand at this time that ;he
full fourteen and 4 half feet Of side
walk be restored to the use OF the
puhlic. by common consent and ac'
uuicsccnce Of the public the cit!
ard state authorities. the building
regulations have created an artiiicia
building line which has somewhat
narrowed the street without bring
ing about any decided congestion o
travel thereon. While it does no
appear necessary that all propert,
owners who have taken advantage
of this additional building space
should suffer the expense and annoy
ance incident to widening the side