State v. Dickstein
| Decision Date | 06 December 1938 |
| Citation | 3 A.2d 115 |
| Parties | STATE v. DICKSTEIN. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; James, Judge.
Philip Dickstein was convicted of violating a regulation of the Board of Health of the Town of Hudson, and he appeals. On question transferred, on whether defendant could be prosecuted under the facts stated.
Question answered affirmatively, and case discharged.
Appeal from a conviction on a complaint and warrant charging a violation of a regulation of the Board of Health of the Town of Hudson. The regulation required notice to the local health officer, as an inspector, when animals were to be killed at any slaughterhouse in the town. The defendant disregarded the requirement on the occasion to which the complaint relates, but notified the meat inspector of Nashua where the meat of the animals to be slaughtered was to be sold and that official inspected them. Evidence was presented that the defendant on other occasions sold meat in Hudson of animals slaughtered by him.
James, J., has transferred without ruling the question whether the defendant may be prosecuted under the foregoing statement.
Karl E. Dowd, of Nashua, for the State.
Philip Dickstein, pro se.
In the absence of brief and oral argument in behalf of the defendant it is not clear what his grounds of defence are, but his contention is understood to be that the regulation is unreasonable as matter of law in application to the charge against him.
Although he had an inspection made by an official inspector of the municipality where the meat from the animals slaughtered by him was to be sold, it is not unreasonable that inspection by the local inspector might nevertheless be required in all cases of slaughtering, regardless of the place where disposal of the product may be made. It is evident that without the safeguard of local inspection in all cases, a requirement of it only for cases of local disposal of the product would create difficulties of enforcement in local cases. The inquiry into the destination of the product of a given instance of slaughtering might often prove uncertain and futile in outcome.
The right to establish incidental regulation in aid of an admittedly proper subject of the police power is well settled. If the regulation may be found to be of reasonable service towards accomplishing the object sought to be attained, it is valid, and covers all cases where its application may thus be of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Nilsen v. Whited
...a proper subject is valid where it is of reasonable service to the accomplishment of the objects sought to be attained: State v. Dickstein, 1938, 89 N.H. 546, 3 A.2d 115; Perry v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission, supra, note The grounds adopted below for a finding of unconstitutionality do......
-
Velishka v. City of Nashua
...various types of statutes enacted under the police power. Chung Mee Restaurant Co. v. Healy, 86 N.H. 483, 484, 171 A. 263; State v. Dickstein, 89 N.H. 546, 3 A.2d 115; Chronicle & Gazette Pub. Co. v. Attorney General, 94 N.H. 148, 48 A.2d 478, 168 A.L.R. 879. The view that redevelopment pro......
-
Maritime Packers v. Carpenter
...whether the statute 'may be found to be of reasonable service towards accomplishing the object sought to be attained'. State v. Dickstein, 89 N.H. 546, 547, 3 A.2d 115; Richardson v. Beattie, 98 N.H. 71, 77, 95 A.2d 122. They contend that the statute is invalid as to them because there is n......