People ex rel. Knoblauch v. Warden of Jail of Fourth Dist. Magistrate's Court
| Decision Date | 16 November 1915 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. KNOBLAUCH, v. WARDEN OF JAIL OF FOURTH DIST. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Habeas corpus by the People, on the relation of Mary B. Knoblauch, against the Warden of the Jail of the Fourth District Magistrate's Court. An order dismissing the writ was affirmed by the Appellate Division (168 App.Div. 951, 153 N.Y.Supp. 1137), and relator appeals. Affirmed.
Bertha Rembaugh, of New York City, for appellant.
Frank L. Polk, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Terence Farley, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
COLLIN.
The relator was committed by a magistrate of the city of New York to answer to the Court of Special Sessions upon the charge of having violated a section of the Sanitary Code enacted by the board of health of the city, as follows:
The writ of habeas corpus through which her discharge from custody was sought was dismissed by the Special Term by an order which was affirmed by the Appellate Division.
[1] The relator asserts that the section was void because the board of health had not, and the board of aldermen alone had, the power to enact it. She bases the assertion upon the following facts and rule for construing statutes: The charter of the city provides:
“Subject to the Constitution and laws of the state, the board of aldermen shall have power to regulate the use of streets and sidewalks by foot passengers, animals or vehicles. * * * ” Laws 1901, c. 466, § 50.
“Subject to the Constitution and laws of the state, the board of aldermen shall have power to * * * regulate or forbid the keeping of dogs. * * * ” Id. § 51.
The sections of the charter creating and defining the powers and duties of the board of health contain no specific provision relating to dogs or the restraint of them and general provisions only could be held to confer power in those regards.
[2] An established rule in the construction of statutes is: A specific provision upon a particular subject controls general provisions for the class to which the subject belongs. Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, § 399. If there are two provisions in the same act, of which one is special and particular, and clearly indicates the matter in controversy, whilst the other is general and would, if standing alone, include it also, and if reading the general provision side by side with the particular one, the inclusion of that matter in the former would produce a conflict between it and the special provision, it must be taken that the latter was designed as an exception to the general provision. Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, § 216.
In the case at bar the general statutory provisions, considered by themselves, would unquestionably confer upon the board of health the power to adopt the section in question. If the power is not within and conferred by them, it is, under the legal rule stated, because the statute specifically confers upon the board of aldermen the power to regulate or forbid the keeping of dogs.
We think the Legislature did not intend by the provisions of sections 50 and 51 to preclude the board of health from adopting section 80a or such other reasonable and just regulation or ordinance in relations to dogs as the public health and safety required. A statement of the sections of the charter, necessarily brief and epitomized, enforce two conclusions-the one, that the Legislature empowered the board of health to enact and enforce regulations and ordinances, in order that the public health and comfort should be protected and promoted, in relation to very many subjects and matters over which the board of aldermen or other municipal body are given by the charter regulative power and control; the other, that the lawful regulations, ordinances, and orders of the board of health are superior and paramount.
The charter empowers the board of aldermen to make ordinances and regulations in relation to, among other things, places of public amusement, the construction, repair, and use of vaults, cisterns, areas, hydrants, sewers, and pumps, the construction, repair, care, and use of markets, the works connected with the supplying of water, the public baths, and public comfort stations (section 49), the throwing or depositing of ashes, garbage, or other filth or rubbish, of any kind upon the streets, the streets, street pavements, sidewalks, and gutters, the public cries, advertising noises, steam whistles, and ringing bells in the streets. (Section 50.) Section 51 is:
The charter empowers the board of health to (among other things) order and enforce the repairs of buildings, houses and other structures, to regulate and control all public markets (so far as relates to the cleanliness, ventilation, and drainage thereof, and to the prevention of the sale, or offering for sale, of improper articles therein), the removal of any obstruction, matter, or thing in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, or places which shall be in its opinion liable to lead to results dangerous to life and health; the prevention of accidents by which life or health may be endangered and generally the abating of all nuisances (section 1171); to remove, abate, suspend, alter, or otherwise improve or purify, under expressed provisions, any building, erection, excavation, premises, business pursuit, matter, or thing, or the sewerage, drainage, or ventilation thereof in its opinion dangerous to life or health (section 1176); to enter, examine and survey all grounds, erections, vehicles, structures,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.Y. Statewide Coal. Commerce v.
...to State laws dealing with the same subject matter ” (emphases added) ] ), and “well-nigh plenary” ( see People ex rel. Knoblauch v. Warden, 216 N.Y. 154, 162, 110 N.E. 451 [1915]; see also Paduano v. City of New York, 45 Misc.2d 718, 721, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 1965], aff'......
-
N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene
...to State laws dealing with the same subject matter ” (emphases added) ] ), and “well-nigh plenary” (see People ex rel. Knoblauch v. Warden, 216 N.Y. 154, 162, 110 N.E. 451 [1915] ; see also Paduano v. City of New York, 45 Misc.2d 718, 721, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 1965], aff'......
-
Williamson v. 16 West 57th St. Co.
...special provision, it must be taken that the latter was designed as an exception to the general provision" (People ex rel. Knoblauch v. Warden, etc., 216 N.Y. 154, 157, 110 N.E. 451). Stated another way, statutory construction requires that where a general statute is in apparent conflict wi......
-
Stubbe v. Adamson
...there involved had been sanctioned by the Legislature by the very provisions here in question. In People ex rel. Knoblauch v. Warden, etc., 216 N. Y. 154, 162,110 N. E. 451, 453, the validity of section 80a of the Sanitary Code was questioned. Judge Collin said: ‘The appellant asserts that ......