Gambar halaman

lector, in which said occupant or occupants shall cause to be placed or deposited all offal, garbage, and refuse, animal and vegetable matter, of the premises. Such occupants shall keep such box or other vessel at a place on the premises most accessible to the person collecting the garbage and offal, and it shall be unlawful to put any but refuse animal and vegetable matter in the vessel used for garbage and offal.

“ Sec. 2. All garbage and offal shall be collected in watertight, closed carts; and each cart shall be purified as often as the health-officer may direct, and shall have painted thereon the word 'Garbage.'

“ Sec. 3. No person shall engage or assist in collecting, removing, or disposing of garbage or offal within the city of Detroit except as provided in this ordinance, and also 80 authorized by a permit from the health-officer of the city; and it shall be unlawful for any person to interfere in any manner with the collection or disposal of garbage and offal by the person or persons authorized to do so.

“ Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of any person contracting with the city for the collection or disposal of garbage to comply with the ordinances of the city, and also with such order and regulations as may be made by the board of health. Such contractor shall remove and dispose of all dead animals found within the city limits.

“Sec. 5. No person except the city contractor or his agents shall carry, convey, or transport any garbage through the streets, alleys, or public places of the city, except upon permission of the board of health; and that the common council have power, from time to time, to designate the hours during which the collection of garbage may be conducted."

Section 6 subjects offenders to punishment by fine not ex: ceeding twenty-five dollars, or by imprisonment in the Detroit house of correction not to exceed ten days.

The charter of the city of Detroit as amended by the Local Acts of 1889 (at page 819) empowers the common council to enact and provide, by appropriate ordinance, for the manner of collecting, transporting, conveying, and handling of garbage, and all animal and vegetable matter and refuse, in said city, and to require all persons in said city to dispose of the game in the manner provided by said common council in said ordinance for the removal and destruction thereof, and to impose and enforce appropriate penalties for any violation of said ordinance.

It is stated in the brief of respondent that this amendment was procured by a prominent citizen and ex-official of Detroit for purposes of his own private gain, and that he is now the contractor with the city for the removal of the garbage of the city, and that he has a practical monopoly of the business, out of which there is likely to come a fortune at the expense of many people who have hitherto made respectable and honest livings in the same business. Of this, however, the record gives us no hint. It is stated in the brief of the city counselor that the city has entered into a contract for the removal of this garbage and refuse matter at an expense of thirty-five thousand dollars annually. But we must look at Gordon's case as it is stated in the record, and from the record it appears that he was properly and legally convicted. We do not propose to inquire into what would be the rights of the owner of the refuse matter, or any other persons, attempting to remove offal and garbage from the premises of the owner to & place outside of the city, if euch owner or other person was doing so in a wagon or vehicle in conformity with the provisions of the ordinance. That question is not involved here, and it will be soon enough to discuss it when a proper case comes before us.

The evidence shows that Gordon was taking swill from the Griswold House in a light wagon, with a tight box, but uncovered, through the streets of the city, to his farm, outside the city limits. When he was in the rear of the Griswold House, a policeman saw him, and told him it was unlawful for him to remove it in that manner, and that he should make complaint against him if he took it away, but would not if he did not take it away. Gordon replied that he had bought the stuff, and wanted to feed it to his hogs, and he should take it away, and did so. Gordon testified that he was a farmer, and his business was raising hogs; that he had contracted with the proprietor of the Griswold House for the swill of the house at six dollars per month, Gordon to take it away; that he did not know that he was violating any ordinance of the city until that day when he was notified by the policeman, - the day mentioned in the warrant. The same day he went to the health-officer, Dr. Duffield, for a permit, but it was refused bim.

We think it competent for the common council to prescribe, reasonably, the manner of removing garbage and offal through and out of the city, and that the requirement that such refuse shall be removed in water-tight, closed carts or wagons, and that the same shall be marked “Garbage,” is a reasonable regulation. Gordon did not come within this regulation, and was guilty of violating the ordinance. Had he been provided with a wagon that substantially complied with section 2 of the ordinance, and had he been refused a permit by the health-officer for no other reason than that he was not the city contractor, or an agent or employee of such contractor, the interesting questions so ably discussed by counsel relative to the authority of cities to virtually grant a monopoly of garbage collection and removal, or to do the whole business through their officials or contractors, would have been legitimately before us for determination. As the case stands, we decline to consider the validity of this ordinance any further than is rendered necessary by the facts in the case. In so far as Gordon transgressed it, it must be sustained. That the vehicle of transportation of this filth should be water-tight, closed, and marked so that it will be known is, in our opinion, not only a reasonable regulation, but a judicious one, as affecting the public health.

The conviction is affirmed.

[ocr errors]

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - ORDINANCES. — Municipal ordinances most be reasonable, to be valid: Village of Carthage v. Frederick, 122 N. Y. 268; 19 Am. St. Rep. 490; People v. Armstrong, 73 Mich. 288; 16 Am. St. Rep. 578. and noto.




TICKET NECESSARY TO RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION. – A round-trip excursion ticket, sold by a railroad at less than the regular raie from ono place to another, and conditioned that to be good for return passage it must be signed by the purchaser and stamped and dated by the ticket agent at the latter place, is reasonable anıl valid. The pure chaser of such ticket is not entitled to return passage thereon until he bas complied with the conditions named therein; and for a failure to so comply, he may be lawfully expelled from the train, without unneces. sary force, apon a refusal to pay his fare, without an investigation on the part of the conductor to whom the ticket is presented us to his idon. tity.

Cahill and Ostrander, for the appellant.

R. A. Montgomery, George C. Greene, 0. G. Getzen-Danner, and C. E. Weaver, for the respondent.

CHAMPLIN, C. J. On September 13, 1887, Daniel Edwards purchased a ticket from defendant entitling him to transportation from Lansing to Chicago, Illinois, and return. The ticket was called the "Chicago Interstate Exposition Excursion Ticket," and was sold to Edwards at a reduced rate from that of regular passenger-tickets. It was good for going only on date of sale, and returning only to and including Monday immediately following the date of sale. It entitled the purchaser to one first-class continuous passage to Chicago, Illinois, and return, subject to the following conditions, printed upon the face of the ticket, viz.: “In consideration of the reduced rate at which this ticket is sold, it will be good for going passage only on date of sale. It is good for return passage only up to and including Monday following the date of sale, and when stamped and dated on back by ticket agent of Lake Shore and Michigan Southern railway at Chicago, aud signed by me. The holder will identify himself or herself as the original purchaser of this ticket by writing his or her name, or by other means, if necessary, when required by conductor or agent. No stop-over allowed. Not transferable." Beneath the above conditions upon the ticket are the words:

agree to the above conditions," which was signed by D. Edwards, purchaser, in his own handwriting. The face of the ticket contained a description of the passenger, indicated by punch-marks made by the ticket agent at Lansing opposite the characteristics printed thereon, which described Mr. Edwards as a slim, middle-aged man, with dark eyes and hair, On the back of the ticket there is printed the following:

“In compliance with my contract with the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, I hereby subscribe my name as the original purchaser of this ticket.

“Dated Chicago, Illinois, - 1887." And there is a blank line for the signature. There are also printed directions to the agents at Lansing and Chicago to stampin the space below. There were three coupons attached to the ticket, - one for a passage to Chicago, one for admittance to the exposition, and one for passage from Chicago to Lansing, “limited as per contract.”

Edwards took passage to Chicago on September 13, 1887, and made one continuous trip. On Saturday, September 17th, be went to the depot of the Lake Shore and Michigan South

ern Railway Company, where be arrived several minutes in advance of the time when the train he intended to take would leave. He busied himself with reading a newspaper until some of the party with whom he was announced that they must hurry up, and get upon the train. They passed through the gateway designed as the entrance to suburban trains, and climbing over the platform of cars, and crossing tracks, reached the train which they desired to take. Had they waited until admitted through the proper gate to take this train, their tick. ets would have been inspected by the gate-keeper, and no one would have been admitted unless his ticket entitled him to ride on that train. Soon after the train pulled out, the conductor came through the car in which Edwards and his companions were seated, collecting tickets and fares. Edwards presented the ticket above described, having attached a coupon for passage from Chicago to Lansing, upon which was printed, “ Limited as per contract." The plaintiff had neglected or omitted to sign his name upon the back of the ticket as the original purchaser, and had neglected to have it stamped and dated upon the back by the ticket agent in Chicago. Upon presenting the ticket to the conductor, he refused to receive it, because it was not stamped nor dated by the ticket agent at Chicago, and did not contain the signature on the back, and informed Mr. Edwards that without these he could not take the ticket, and that he must get off at the Twentysecond Street station, when he could go back and get it stamped. Mr. Edwards declined to get off, and the conductor told him that he must get off at that station, or he would have to put him off. The train stopped at that station, but Mr. Edwards did not get off.

After passing the station, the conductor found him upon the train, and told him again that the ticket was worthless, and that if he insisted upon riding on that train he would have to pay his fare to Elkhart, which was his run, and he would give him a receipt for it, so he could show it to the company and settle the matter with them; and Edwards said he would pay his fare, as the conductor testifies; that he then made out a receipt; and when he presented it to Edwards, he then inquired if he would have to go through with the same thing with the next conductor, and was told he would. He then said he would not pay; that he had already paid his fare, and was going to ride home on the ticket. He explained to the conductor who he was and where he lived, and referred him

AM. ST. Rep., VOL. XXI. – 34

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »