Douglass v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 14 January 1830
• Citation: 2 Rawle 262,5 Haz.Pa.Reg. 214
• Parties: DOUGLASS v. The COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2 Rawle 262

5 Haz.Pa.Reg. 214

DOUGLASS v. The COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 14, 1830

IN ERROR.

To elevate and enlarge a wooden building, so as materially to alter its character, is an offence within the meaning of the ordinance of the 6th of June, 1796, " to prevent the erection of wooden buildings within certain limits of the city of Philadelphia. "

In an indictment under this ordinance, it is not necessary to aver that the building was erected on a lot or piece of ground.

An indictment containing two counts, one charging the defendant with the erection of a wooden shop, the other with the erection of a warehouse, does not set forth distinct offences, punishable in different modes.

If the erection be by the tenant, an indictment will lie against him, and need not be against the owner of the building.

ERROR to the Mayor's Court of the city of Philadelphia.

On the return of a writ of error to the Mayor's Court of the city of Philadelphia, it appeared, that William Douglass, the defendant below, was indicted in that court for an alleged violation of the ordinance of the 6th of June, 1796, " to prevent the erection of wooden buildings within certain limits of the city of Philadelphia, by which it is enacted as follows:--

" Section 1. From and after the passing of this ordinance, no wooden mansion-house, shop, ware-house, store carriage-house or stable, shall be erected or built within that part of the city of Philadelphia, which is comprised within the limits herein after mentioned, that is to say, from the river Delaware to the east side of Sixth street, in those parts of the city included between the south side of Vine street and the north side of Sassafras, or Race street, and between the south side of Walnut street and the north side of South, or Cedar street, and from the river Delaware to the east side of Tenth street, in that part of the city included between the south side of Race, or Sassafras street and the north side of Walnut street.

Section 2. If, after the passing of this ordinance any person or persons, shall erect and build, or cause to be built, any wooden mansion-house, store, carriage-house or stable, upon any lot or piece of ground, within those parts of the city herein before specified, and shall be duly convicted thereof, upon indictment found against him, her or them, in the Mayor's Court of the city of Philadelphia, every such person or persons, so offending and convicted, shall forfeit and be sentenced and adjudged to pay a fine of five hundred dollars."

The indictment contained two counts, the first of which charged, that the defendant did make, build, and erect, and cause, and procure to be made, built and erected, a certain wooden shop, between Pine and Spruce streets, and Delaware Fourth and Fifth streets, and within that part of the said city which lies to the eastward of Sixth street from the river Delaware, between the south side of Walnut street and the north side of South, or Cedar street.

The second count charged, that the defendant did make build, and erect, and cause, and procure to be made, built, and erected, a certain ware-house, between Pine and Spruce streets, & c.

The jury returned a special verdict in these words, viz.--

" The jury find, that since the passing of the ordinance of the mayor, aldermen and citizens of Philadelphia, entitled, ‘ An ordinance, & c.,’ passed the 6th of June, 1796, the defendant became the tenant and occupant of a frame tenement, situate within the limits prescribed by the said ordinance: That at the time of his so becoming the tenant of the said building, the same was a wooden building, but that it has, within a short period, been materially altered and enlarged by the defendant, by adding to the height thereof, four feet on the west and ten feet on the east, and making the lower story nine inches further to the southward, and by such other alterations and additions the same has been converted from a blacksmith's shop into a cabinetmaker's ware-house and shop. The jury further find, that by the alterations and additions aforesaid, the danger from fire is increased. The jury further find, that the building was not originally erected by the defendant, but that he, as tenant of the same, made the alterations and additions aforesaid. But whether by the same, which the jury find to be material and extensive, the defendant erected and built a wooden building, within the true intent and meaning of the said ordinance, the jurors submit to the determination of...