Commonwealth v. Goodnow

Citation117 Mass. 114
PartiesCommonwealth v. Daniel Goodnow
Decision Date06 January 1875
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Argued November 20, 1874

Suffolk. Complaint to the Municipal Court of the city of Boston alleging that the defendant, on February 3, 1874, "at Boston aforesaid, and within the judicial district of said court, with force and arms, in a certain building there situate, and bordering on West Brookline Street, the same being a public street of said city, did cause to be constructed a certain window, which said window did then and there project into said street, against the peace of said Commonwealth, the form of the statute of said Commonwealth and by-laws of said city, in such case made and provided."

At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Putnam, J the facts as alleged in the complaint were admitted, and the defendant contended that the by-law of the city of Boston was void as against the statute; and that the facts alleged and admitted constituted no offence against the laws of the Commonwealth.

The judge ruled otherwise for the purpose of the trial, directed a verdict of guilty, which was returned accordingly, and reported the case, at the request of the defendant, for the determination of this court. The defendant also moved in arrest of judgment, which motion the judge overruled; and to this ruling the defendant alleged exceptions.

Judgment on the verdict.

A. A Ranney, for the defendant.

J. L Stackpole, for the Commonwealth.

Endicott, J. Ames & Devens, JJ., absent.

OPINION
Endicott

In 1799, an act was passed prohibiting any person from erecting or maintaining a bow window which shall project into the streets of the town of Boston more than one foot beyond the front of his house; and a penalty was attached of one dollar for each day such bow window shall be continued after notice from the proper authorities. 2 Mass. Spec. Laws 340.

By the St. of 1848, c. 278, cities were empowered to make such rules and regulations for the erection and maintenance of balustrades and other projections upon the roofs and sides of buildings as the safety of the public requires, with a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars for each offence. See Gen. Sts. c. 19, § 13. By the St. of 1854 c. 448, the city charter of Boston was revised, and by § 35 authority was given to make all needful and salutary by-laws and ordinances not inconsistent with the laws of the Commonwealth, as towns and cities have authority to make and to annex penalties not exceeding fifty...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • John Donnelly & Sons, Inc. v. Outdoor Advertising Bd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 15, 1975
    ...provision for some matters within the purview of the by-law will not render it invalid as repugnant to law. . . .' See Commonwealth v. Goodnow, 117 Mass. 114 (1875). In Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass. 136, 154, 293 N.E.2d 268, 279 (1973) this court said: 'As a general proposition the cases de......
  • Commonwealth v. Baronas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 16, 1934
    ...of statutory provision for some matters within the purview of the by-law will not render it invalid as repugnant to law. Commonwealth v. Goodnow, 117 Mass. 114;Commonwealth v. Parks, 155 Mass. 531, 30 N. E. 174;Commonwealth v. Hubley, 172 Mass. 58, 51 N. E. 448,42 L. R. A. 403, 70 Am. St. R......
  • Chaffee v. Inhabitants of Town of Oxford
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 2, 1941
    ...... the board also extends to the needy who have settlements. elsewhere or none at all in the Commonwealth. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 117, Sections 14, 17. It does not appear that the. town had given any directions, as it could, as to any manner. of relief, ......
  • Town of Milton v. Donnelly
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 3, 1940
    ...... to be fixed with regard to the cost of administering this. section, and need not be uniform throughout the commonwealth. . . . Subject to the approval of the division, towns may. further regulate and restrict said billboards or other. devices within their respective ... State agency. The by-law is not repugnant to the statute or. to these rules and regulations. Commonwealth v. Goodnow, 117 Mass. 114 . Commonwealth v. Hubley, 172 Mass. 58 . Commonwealth v. Haffer,. 279 Mass. 73 . Commonwealth v. Baronas, 285 Mass. 321 . ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT