State v. Bjork
| Decision Date | 07 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,596 |
| Citation | 195 N.W. 926,157 Minn. 276 |
| Parties | STATE v. H. S. BJORK |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Complaint was filed in the municipal court of Minneapolis accusing defendant of violating an ordinance in that he had established and maintained within that city certain marble work and yard for the manufacture of monuments without obtaining a permit therefor. The complaint was tried before Reed, J., who found defendant guilty and fined him $25, or in default thereof imprisonment in the workhouse not exceeding 20 days. From the judgment entered upon the order, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Ordinance respecting making of stone monuments valid.
The validity of an ordinance, requiring a permit from the city council to carry on an occupation liable to become a nuisance in certain localities in a city, sustained under the decisions in State v. Dirnberger, 152 Minn. 44; State v. Amor & Co. 153 Minn. 244, 190 N.W. 59; Meyers v. City of Minneapolis, 154 Minn. 238; and Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361.
John N Berg, for appellant.
Neil M. Cronin, City Attorney, and Luther W. Youngdahl, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of having, on October 26, 1922, wilfully and wrongfully maintained, within the corporate limits of the city of Minneapolis at 3517 Hennepin avenue, a certain marble work and yard for the manufacture and sale of stone monuments without first having obtained a permit from the city council to operate the same, contrary to an ordinance of the city.
The ordinance passed October 25, 1912, provides that: "No person, natural or artificial, shall hereafter erect, alter, establish or maintain within the city of Minneapolis any greenhouse, concrete block factory, or marble works or yard for the manufacture or sale of stone monuments without having obtained a permit therefor from the city council."
The point is made that, even if the manufacture of stone monuments is a business or trade subject to police regulation in that it is apt to become a nuisance to adjacent residents, the sale of such monuments cannot be so considered. It is enough to say that no evidence at all was offered of any sale, so that the conviction rests exclusively on that part of the ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of a marble work or yard for the manufacture of stone monuments.
The evidence was ample to show that defendant was maintaining a marble work or yard for the manufacture of stone monuments within the city limits without a permit. It was not essential to prove that all the work necessary to be done upon the stone block, as taken from the quarry, was done at defendant's yard. The evidence showed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial