Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Jones 32 N.Y. Crim. 89

← Cases

People v. Jones

32 N.Y. Crim. 89 Court SUPREME COURT—APP. DIVISION—SECOND DEPARTMENT, English

Delivered by Burr, J. (dissenting):

Contents

Dissent

p. 89
SUPREME COURT—APP. DIVISION—SECOND DEPARTMENT,
July, 1914.
THE PEOPLE v. HUGH JONES.
(164 App. Div. 894.)

Headnote

Sanitary Code—Section 181, Discharge of smoke in City.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of New York, rendered on the 15th day of January, 1914, convicting him of a" violation of section 181 of the Sanitary Code.
Judgment of conviction of the Court of Special Sessions affirmed. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Burr, J. read for reversal.

I am constrained to dissent in this case. Thefordinance in question is a health regulation. In People v. New York Edison Co. ( 159 App. Div. 786 ), 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” (p. 787). 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” (p. 795). “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

p. 90
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 ” (p. 795). Such evidence .is wholly wanting in this case. (See, also, People v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 159 App. Div. 329 .),

Cases cited