Commonwealth v. Hubley

• Decision Date: 20 October 1898
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HUBLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

172 Mass. 58

51 N.E. 448

COMMONWEALTH v. HUBLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 20, 1898

COUNSEL

W.J. Taft, for defendant.

H Parker and G.S. Taft, for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The defendant was convicted of a violation of an ordinance of the city of Worcester, which is as follows: "An ordinance to regulate the collecting and storage of old rags, old papers or other refuse material. Section 1. No person shall carry on the business of collecting, storing and dealing in old rags old papers or other such refuse material in any building within a circle the radius of which is two miles from the intersection of the south line of Front street and the east line of Main street, unless he is duly licensed therefor by the board of aldermen, for which license if granted, no fee shall be charged." The only question in the case is whether the ordinance is valid. By its charter the city of Worcester has all the rights to pass ordinances that are given to cities and towns by general laws. St.1893, c. 444, § 19. Under Pub.St. c. 27, § 15, towns may make "such necessary orders and by-laws, not repugnant to law, as they may judge most conducive to their welfare," for the following purposes, among others, namely: "For directing and managing the prudential affairs, preserving the peace and good order, and maintaining the internal police thereof." By-laws and ordinances looking to the preservation of the public health are plainly within the authority conferred by this section. See Com. v Parks, 155 Mass. 531, 30 N.E. 174. The authority given by Pub.St. c. 80, §§ 18, 84, to boards of health of towns to make regulations and pass orders in reference to certain matters affecting the health of the community cannot properly be construed to prevent the passage of reasonable by-laws by towns, under the authority of Pub.St. c. 27, § 15. Com v. Parks, 155 Mass. 531-533, 30 N.E. 174. Special authority is given by Pub.St. c. 80, § 18, to a board of health, "respecting articles which are capable of containing or conveying infection or contagion, or of creating sickness brought into or conveyed from its town." It is manifest that old rags may be very dangerous in this respect. The case of Train v. Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523, 11 N.E. 929, fully recognizes the reasonableness of provisions regulating the business of dealing in rags. Besides the authority found in the statutes...