Commonwealth v. Mulhall
| Decision Date | 01 January 1895 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. MULHALL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Fred'k E. Hurd, First Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
G.W Wiggin and P.H. Cooney, for defendant.
By Pub.St. c. 53, § 15, it is provided that "the mayor and aldermen and selectmen may make such rules and regulations for the passage of carriages, wagons, carts trucks, sleds, sleighs, horse cars or other vehicles, or for the use of sleds or other vehicles for coasting in or through the streets or public ways of a city or town as they may deem necessary for the public safety or convenience, with penalties for violation thereof not exceeding twenty dollars for each offense." This statute was originally enacted in similar language in the statute of 1875 (chapter 136, § 1). The ordinance which the defendant is alleged to have violated is as follows: "No person shall carry or cause to be carried on any vehicle in any street a load, the weight whereof exceeds three tons, unless such load consists of an article which cannot be divided." The statute above quoted has reference to the safety and convenience of the public in the use of the streets. Many of the streets of Boston are greatly crowded, not only with pedestrians, but with vehicles of almost every kind. It cannot fairly be said that this ordinance has no reference to the convenience or safety of the public who use the streets. We can see that very heavily loaded teams, drawn by four or six horses, in the most crowded parts of the city, might seriously interfere with the convenient use of the streets by others. If the ordinance is within the class of ordinances in regard to which this statute permits the mayor and aldermen to exercise their judgment and discretion, we cannot declare it void on the ground that we might have decided the question in reference to the necessity of the ordinance differently. If they deem such an ordinance necessary for the public safety or convenience, and if it is not a clear invasion of private rights secured by the constitution, it must stand as a regulation made under legislative authority. We think the facts offered to be proved do not take the case out of the field of regulation by the legislature, or by the mayor and aldermen as a local tribunal acting under the authority of the legislature. If it appeared that the ordinance could have no relation to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. People's Express Co.
...Lorme v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 79 S. C. 370, 60 S. E. 440; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State (Ark.) 111 S. W. 456;Com. v. Mulhall, 162 Mass. 496, 39 N. E. 183,44 Am. St. Rep. 387. See Rev. Laws, c. 52, §§ 14, 16, 18, 19, 23,...
-
Commonwealth v. Kimball
...135;Commonwealth v. Robertson, 5 Cush. 438, 442;Commonwealth v. Parks, 155 Mass. 531, 533, 30 N.E. 174;Commonwealth v. Mulhall, 162 Mass. 496, 498, 499, 39 N.E. 183,44 Am.St.Rep. 387; 2 McQuillin, Mun.Corp., 2d Ed. §§ 760, 761), we cannot pronounce the prohibition unreasonable. The main att......
-
Commonwealth v. People's Express Co.
... ... & Q. Ry. Co. v ... Drainage Com., 200 U.S. 561, 26 S.Ct. 341, 50 L.Ed. 596; ... State v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 117 N.W ... 686; De Lorme v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 79 ... S.C. 370, 60 S.E. 440; C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State ... (Ark.) 111 S.W. 456; Com. v. Mulhall ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Maletsky
...have been affirmed in other cases. Com. v. Plaisted, 148 Mass. 375, 19 N. E. 224,2 L. R. A. 142, 12 Am. St. Rep. 566;Com. v. Mulhall, 162 Mass. 496, 39 N. E. 183,44 Am. St. Rep. 387;Com. v. Packard, 185 Mass. 64, 65, 69 N. E. 1067;Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 21 Sup. Ct. 132, 45 L. E......