Evening journal., 1914-02-06
QUERY: WHEN
IS A WINDOW
NOT ERECTED
JUDGE ChurChman Hears Wit
nySSeS and Argument in
HurIey-POWel Case
CLAIM IT WAS PUT IN
CONTRARY To LAW

The Hurley-Powel Company was
charged in the Municipal Court today
with violating resolution Of the
Street and Sewer Department. The
charge was that on September /.
1912, the company erected or caused
tO be built "a bulk window at No.
4l4 Market street, which extended be-
yond the true building line Robert
G. Harman represented the defend
ant, and Assistant City Solicitor
Lynn the city
leslie Christy. secretary of the
Street and Sewer Department, test-
fed regarding the repeal Of the for
mer regulations and the passage Of
the resolution regulating windows
along the streets of Wilmington on
September 3. l911
John h Hcaly testified about Sep
tember ]. 1912, he did work for the
Hurley-Powel Company. The con-
tract called for enlargng the bulk
windows, but LETT the old lines there.
Instead OF using the posts glass cor
ners were used. Mr. Hcaly testi-
fed that IN the alterations the win
dow went back about two inches from
the extension OF the old window
Really all that was done was to go
in towards the store. put in new
glass and the floor and ceiling OF the
window were renewed, he said. He
considered he altered and repaired
bulk window at the store and did
not erect or build a bulk window. He
1 placed the new floor and ceiling over
the old ones He used the old glass
except what had been broken. lie
also placed a marble slab along the
brackets beneath the window.
Chici City Engineer Alexander j. l1y-
Tor testified the bulk window extends
about seventeen inches beyond the true
building line.
! Frank ". Picrson, street commission.
er, testified he recalled the time the VIM
dow was being put in, and hc called at
tention % the violation of the resolu-
tion. Frank O'Donnell, the owner of the
building, and Contractor Healy called
upon the Directors of the Street and
Sewer Department. The directors in
spcctcd the work and decided the win
dow was new one, ana in violation ot
the resolution.
Deputy City Solicitor Lynn asked the
Witness what was his calling. lie re-
piled that before his present position he
was a millWright, and built many bulk
windows. lie considered the window
was new one. up-to-date, and not AN
lalteicd one. The window had been there
for wears. The floor and ceiling were
covered. The state then rested.
William T.. Linton was the first wit
mess called for the defense. lie said h'
al n a INT
cd the window lie knew the mcanin;
of the words erecting or building, an'
said this was not a now window. Wit
lhis knowledge the work was simply tha
lof repairing. lie has had thirty years
r experience. and after having heard Nh
+ llcaly's testimony. in his opinion Nh
D. Hcaly did not construct. erect or bulk
a bulk window contrary 10 law.
Frank O'Donnoll testified he own
the property and that the bulk windoy
) had been there for twenty years
: The defense rested.
Mr.. Harman. addressing the court
} asked that the case be dismissed, first
because what was done was neithe
} building nor erecting bull
! window and secondly that III
= pordinanco is void because u take
property without condemnation pro
ceedings or compensation. II is un
] fair. partial and gives to some parue
= the right to do what is prohibited 4
A others. he argued. He maintaine
that the resolution means just wha
they intended-no new bulk window
to be erected. but nothing in thi
y resolution is said regarding the re
pairing of a bulk window Nothin
is said regarding alterations TO sucI
! a window.
He quoted authorities from othe
States and said he did not believ
the Street and Sewer Department
would attempt to go down Marke
. street and take directly eightee
: inches OF property which they ind
rectly try to take under the resolr
tlon. Il is utterly absurd that Oh
CITY OF Wilmington can take ava
property without compensation. ~
claimed The charter of the city pro
hibits the passage OF an ordinance o
regulation exempting any one froi
I such ordinance or res llation. Unde
+ tho charter there cannot be discrin
i ination. Here is an ordinance pre-
j hibiting some person from havin
Z. bulk windows and allowing others
9 keep them.
Deputy City Solicitor Lynn VII
y conducted the prosecution, replied
/ the argument by Mr. Harman an
:. argued for a conviction.
Judge Churchman said that ncithe
arguments touched a real point-th
easement If bulk window has e.
r listed for twenty years does it Great