Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-15

and convenience. Yet. as was said BY
the Supreme Court Of tho United States
in the case OF A. T. & s. Railway Com
pany VS.. rosburg decided Juno l. 1879
and reported in tho advance opinion
But we cannot ut all agree that a po-
lice regulation is not like any other
law. subject to the equal protection
clause OF the fourteenth amendment.
Nothing to that effect was held or init
mated in any OF tho cases referred 10.
The constitutional guarantee entities
all persons and corporations within the
jurisdiction OF the State to the protcc-
ton of equal laws In this as in other
departments OF .egislation'
NOT NEEDED TO PROTECT
WELFARE OF PUBLIC
80 do not think that the ordinance
!, establishing the building line in this
'ase Is appropriate or needful for the
protection Of the public welfare or
public safety or health, nor that il has
any reasonable relation to the public
convenience or comfort Mugler VS..
Kansas l2a U. s., p. 623.
The citizens complaining of the
erection OF the apartment-house pro-
JectinE beyond the front of their own
may interfere with the light and air
and with the view from their front
porches hitherto enjoyed by them. but
this situation does not Justify tho STAT.
In extending the use OF it's great re-
s'Taiaing power. which should be called
INTO action only by the existence Of
some actual public need In several re-
cent cases tho courts have had occasion
10 pass upon the validity Of building
me ordinances and in none of then,
mas the ordinances been sustained ex
eePt In one case from Connecticut. and
mere the case was. in fact, not decided
uPon the merits of the ordinance. The
most recent cases. In the courts OF las,
resort in each instance. arc:
ruth vs. Board Of Affairs (w. val
S. E. los 80
i. S. 1877
Sign Works VS.. Training School ,4o
H. iS6 ''0
! am constrained to the copclu-
s'oh mat the ordinance. whose validity
is assailed In this proceedi,r NO.,
passed largely for the protectton ., ,hs
citizens objecting 10 the erection OF
the apartment house: mat n is a.
uhrea Sohao!e restraint upon the full
use OF and absolute dominion over
.. eat estate or the petitioner; that
II has no reasonable relation r. an,.
public need: that the esta hli.h, an!
the building line on the .outhern s;Sa
OF the square In question is not No
ice regulation reasonably essential for
or promotive OF the public health. CON.
renienre or comfort-and that. there
.ore' the ordinance deprives the petl-
toner Of the full use Of his proncrtv
enjoyed by other persons and 81 A.
prives him of the equal protectInn ~
the law. and Is Invalid because ~ is IN
conhict with the Fourteenth Amendment
OF the United States Constitution Tho
ouiioinS OF the apartment house will
.ouotiess render the use OF some OF
inc adjacent houses less enjoyable than
before. but it is fundamental in Ameri.
can Jurisprudence that easements ~
iiSht and air and similar easements
can not be acquired by prescription az
was the case with the servitude. OF the
roman law and With the easements Of
the English Law. In this country such
easements can only be acquired or Gro.
ated by grant.
PUBLIC SAFETY BOARD
HAD NO JURISDICTION
IS. Under the language OF the o-di-
nance creating the Board OF Public
SAFETY II was manifestly intended that
the board was to act as a body to re-
view the Judgment OF the building In
spector as 10 matters involving the
character OF the plans. methods OF
construction, the materials 10 be used
and other such practical matters about
which an applicant and the inspector
might differ. The question at issue here
is purely judicial question for adjudi-
cation by the regularly constituted
judicial department OF the government
and was and Is beyond the Jurisdiction
OF the Board OF Public Safety For
these reasons. and because. further the
Board OF Public Safety Is party 10 the
proceedings and bound by the action OF
tho court, I do not think It necessary
that any action by the board need be
required by the court
For the reasons stated an order NAV
be entered directing peremptory writ
OF mandamus to be issued against the
building INSPECTOR"