Case Name: PEOPLE v. JONES
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-07-31
Citations: 148 N.Y.S. 983
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. JONES.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 148
Pages: 983–983

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. JONES.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
July 31, 1914.)
Appeal from Court of Special Sessions of City of New York.
Hugh Jones was convicted of violating New York Sanitary Code, § 181, prohibiting the discharge of smoke, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, CARR, RICH, and PUTNAM, JJ.
Henry M. Kidder, of New York City (P. L. Anderson, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Martin H. Murphy, of New York City (Herman Stiefel, of New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction of the Court of Special Sessions affirmed.
BURR, J.
I am constrained to dissent in this case. The ordinance in question is a health regulation. In People v. New York Edison Co., 159 App. Div. 786, 788, 144 N. Y. Supp. 707, 709, defendant demurred to the information upon the ground that the ordinance was unconstitutional, and the court below sustained the demurrer, "holding in effect that it forbids the discharge of smoke which would not injure property or affect the public health or comfort." The Appellate Division in the First Department held this to be too narrow a construction, and said the "provisions should not be construed literally, especially since that might render them void." "It is evident that the object of this enactment was the prevention of the discharge of smoke of such a character and in such quantities that it might injuriously affect the public health or comfort, or injure property, and the court would not be warranted in convicting for a violation of this section, excepting on evidence from which an inference to that effect might be drawn." 159 App. Div. 795, 144 N. Y. Supp. 714. Such evidence is wholly wanting in this case.
See, also, People v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 159 App. Div. 329, 144 N. Y. Supp. 699.