Commonwealth v. Hyde

• Decision Date: 09 February 1918
• Citation: 118 N.E. 643,230 Mass. 6
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HYDE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

230 Mass. 6

118 N.E. 643

COMMONWEALTH

v.HYDE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Feb. 9, 1918.

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; Hugo A. Dubuque, Judge.

Fred H. Hyde was convicted of going upon the ice of a lake and fishing therein without written permit from the water commissioners of the city, in violation of the rules and regulations of the state board of health, and he excepts. On report from the superior court. Exceptions overruled.

Louis S. Cox, Dist. Atty., of Lawrence, for the Commonwealth.

Hubert C. Thompson, of Haverhill, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a complaint charging the defendant with going upon the ice of Crystal Lake and fishing therein without a written permit of the water commissioners of the city of Haverhill, in violation of rules and requlations of the state board of health. The pertinent part of the regulation of the state board of health is as follows:

‘No person shall * * * unless permitted by a written permit of the board of water commissioners of the city of Haverhill fish in * * * Crystal Lake * * * so called in the city of Haverhill, * * * said lakes * * * being used by said city as sources of water supply.’

The regulation was passed pursuant to R. L. c. 75, § 113, as amended by St. 1907, c. 467, § 1, which empowers the state board of health to ‘make rules and regulations to prevent the pollution and to secure the sanitary protection, of all such waters as are used as sources of water supply,’ with power to delegate the granting or withholding of permits to water commissioners, subject to investigation and revision by way of appeal to the board itself.

[1] The delegation by the Legislature of the right to make rules and regulations is within its power. Com. v. Sisson, 189 Mass. 247, 75 N. E. 619,1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 752, 109 Am. St. Rep. 630;Com. v. Kingsbury, 199 Mass. 542, 85 N. E. 848, L. R. A. 1915E, 264,127 Am. St. Rep. 513. The case at bar thus is distinguished from Com. v. Staples, 191 Mass. 384, 77 N. E. 712, where no power of delegation was conferred by the statute there under consideration. The power of revising the conduct of the water commissioners reserved to the state board of health by the statute avoids the difficulty of vesting an untrammelled discretion in a subordinate board or officer, which was held fatal to the ordinance before the court in Com. v. Maletsky, 203 Mass. 241, 89 N. E. 245,24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1168,Goldstein v. Connor, 212 Mass. 57, 98 N. E. 701, ...