Commonwealth v. Young
Decision Date | 07 September 1883 |
Citation | 135 Mass. 526 |
Parties | Commonwealth v. James O. Young |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
[Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Complaint to the Police Court of Chelsea, charging the defendant with the violation, on August 16, 1882, of an order or regulation made by the board of health of the town of Revere, adopted on October 11, 1881, as follows:
Trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Mason, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
It appeared in evidence, that the town of Revere, at the time the board of health made the order or regulation, for the violation of which the defendant was arrested, contained an area of 3419 acres, and a population of some 2200 inhabitants; that about one half of the area of the town was in use for agricultural purposes, and there were farms within the limits of the town containing from one hundred to one hundred and fifty acres; that the valuation of farming lands and farm buildings was not less than $ 340,000.
It also appeared that a large number of swine were kept in the town and had been for a number of years; that in some instances offal from the city of Boston had been brought to Revere and fed to swine; and that the defendant and others had been engaged for years in the business of feeding offal to swine kept in Revere.
It further appeared that the board of health of that town made the order or regulation referred to, at a meeting of the board held in 1881, the record of which is as follows:
Directly after said order was passed, copies of it were posted in different places in Revere, and sent to every house in the town, and published in the Revere Journal, a paper published in said town; but no other written notice was ever given to the defendant in reference to the order prohibiting the keeping of swine.
It was also in evidence, that the defendant kept, at the time of the complaint and his arrest, something like one hundred and fifty swine, near what is known as "Revere Beach," and that the dwellings near that place were largely cottages occupied during the summer only; that these cottages were built upon lots, containing, as a rule, five thousand square feet; that the nearest one was within five hundred feet of the place where the defendant kept his swine; that there was a railroad station within twelve hundred feet of the defendant's piggery, and that during the summer months a large...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tracht v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Worcester
...proceedings under § 122 et seq. and those under § 143 et seq. has been frequently pointed out and need not be restated. Commonwealth v. Young, 135 Mass. 526;Commonwealth v. Rawson, 183 Mass. 491, 67 N.E. 605;Belmont v. New England Brick Co., 190 Mass. 442, 77 N.E. 504;Kineen v. Lexington Bo......
-
City of Newton v. Belger
... ... unreasonable, in restraint of trade, against public policy, ... and against the statutes of the commonwealth, and the statute ... cited; and, third, that the refusal of the city of Newton to ... grant a permit is unreasonable, and against the intent of the ... Gen.St. c. 26, §§ 52-60; ... Pub.St. c. 80, § 84 et seq.; Id. § 94 et seq.; ... Com. v. Patch, 97 Mass. 222, 223; Com. v ... Young, 135 Mass. 526. Whether a by-law is void is a ... question of law for the court, and not of fact for the jury ... Com. v. Worcester, 3 Pick. 462; ... ...
-
Town of Lexington v. Miskell
...Taylor, 116 Mass. 254.Quincy v. Kennard, 151 Mass. 563, 24 N. E. 860. See Cambridge v. Trelegan, 181 Mass. 565, 64 N. E. 204. Commonwealth v. Young, 135 Mass. 526,Belmont v. New England Brick Co., 190 Mass. 442, 77 N. E. 504, Board of Survey of Lexington v. Suburban Land Co., 235 Mass. 108,......
-
Board of Health of Franklin v. Hass
...and its predecessors have been construed as authorizing complete prohibition of 'the employment of keeping swine.' See Commonwealth v. Young, 135 Mass. 526, 529; Cochis v. Board of Health of Canton, 332 Mass. 721, 722-724, 127 N.E.2d 575. As was said in Board of Health of Wareham v. Marine ......