Evening star., 1923-01-26
POLICE COURT TEST
FORD. c. SNOW LAW
Legal Conflict Caused by
Combination of Civil and
Criminal Penalties.
TWO COURTS INVOLVED
First Case Will Be Taken to Higher
Courts for De.
cision.
TWO COURTS INVOLVED

Wasbington's new snow-remoyal
law will be tested out in Police Court
instead of in the Municipal Court,
Corporation Counsel Stephens decided
today.
This action followed the refusal yes
terday of Assistant Corporation Coun-
sci Frank w. Madigan. In the Police
Court. to issue a warrant against q
person who had failed to remove the
snow from his sidewalk. He based his
refusal on the ground that he could
not find where the Police Court had
any Jurisdiction in the matter.
Legal Question Involved.
He expressed the opinion that the
act Is defective. in that 1t fails to fix
any jurisdiction or to make the Of
tense misdemeanor. He stated fur
ther that 1t fails to fix the jurisdic-
tion into which SUITS for recovery of
expenses incurred by the District gov
ernment in cleaning sidewalks of
those who fail to comply with the law
may be brought.
Admitting the phraseology of the
act Is not clear as to which court
action should be brought in, Mr.. Ste
phens notified Assistant Corporation
Council Frank Madlgan at Police
Court to issue a warrant, as soon as
the next one is applied for. IN order
to have settled as soon as possible the
question Of how these cases should
be handled
Mr.. Stephens said section 6 OF the
act. which specifies what the corpora
tion counsel shall do. is confusing
The first sentence of this section
speaks of the fling of a suit to re.
cover the cost Of removing snow
which property owners fail to re.
move from their sidewalks. When YOU
speak Of suing. the corporation coun.
sci explained. you imply a. civil ac.
tion.
Further on, however. the section
states that in addition to the cost OF
cleaning the defendants sidewalk the
District shall recover a penalty vi
go. Penalties. Mr.. Stephens observed
are imposed In a criminal action, such
as would be taken in Police Court.
Recalls Former Law.
The legal adviser to the Commits.
sioners concluded that the wises,
course would be to take a case into
Police Court and follow it through tc
the higher courts, and have the ques.
tion OF jurisdiction settled.
Mr.. Stephens recalled that in hi.
early days as assistant corporation
counsel the District had a snow Law
that was thrown out of the court<
and abandoned. What will be thu
fate of this law remains to be seen
Briefly. the new law provides that 9
property owner or occupant shall
clean his sidwalk within the hrs
eight hours of daylight after snow
stops falling. Upon failure of tn,
occupant of the premises to do so tn,
District is directed to remove tn,
snow and take court action to re
cover.
1t has been roughly estimated tha
1t would cost the District about q
cents to clean the sidewalk In from
of the average home.
While this cost Is insignificant IL
one case, 1t would amount into quit,
a large sum II Morris Hacker, super
visor Of city refuse. attempted t.
clean every sidewalk in Washington moi
cleaned by the occupants.
The act of creating the snow Law
carried only $4,000 for its enforce
ment, half Of which is to be expend
ed by the War Department in clean,
ing sidewalks around federal proper.
ty, leaving $1,000 for the District t
spend.