State v. Speyer
| Decision Date | 13 July 1895 |
| Citation | 32 A. 476,67 Vt. 502 |
| Parties | STATE v. SPEYER. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Addison county court; Tyler, Judge.
William Speyer was convicted for the violation of a regulation of the state board of health, and excepts. Reversed.
Information for keeping and maintaining a pigpen within 100 feet of an inhabited dwelling. Heard at the December term, 1894, Addison county, Tyler, J., presiding. The respondent filed a general demurrer. This was overruled and the respondent ordered to plead over, to which the respondent excepted. Thereupon the respondent plead not guilty, and a trial by jury was had. The state proved due notice from the state board of health, and the maintaining of the pigpen within 100 feet of the dwelling house, but did not show the existence of any epidemic or contagious diseases in the vicinity, nor that the pigpen was maintained in a manner to promote such diseases. The respondent moved the court to direct an acquittal, and excepted to its refusal to do so. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The respondent then moved in arrest of judgment. The court overruled the motion, and gave judgment on the verdict, to which the respondent excepted.
F. L. Fish, State's Atty., for the State.
Button & Button, for the respondent.
The information charges that the respondent kept and maintained a pigpen within 100 feet of an inhabited dwelling house, in violation of a regulation made by the state board of health. To this information the respondent demurred. The demurrer was overruled, information adjudged sufficient and the respondent ordered to plead over; to which the respondent excepted.
No. 93, § 6, of the Acts of 1886, as amended by No. 82, § 11, of the Acts of 1892, provides that the state board of health shall have authority to promulgate and enforce such regulations for the better preservation of the public health in contagious and epidemic diseases, and regarding the causes which tend to their development and spread, as they shall judge necessary; and any person or persons or corporation neglecting or refusing, after having been duly notified in writing, to comply with the requirements of such regulations, shall, upon conviction thereof, pay to the treasurer of the state a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100. Acting under the authority conferred by these enactments, the board of health promulgated a regulation that no pigpen should be built or maintained within 100 feet of any well or spring of water used for drinking purposes, nor within 100 feet of any street or inhabited house.
The power of the legislature to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious and contagious diseases cannot be questioned. All property in the state is undoubtedly held subject to the reasonable supervision of legislative authority, to an extent necessary to the reasonable preservation of the public health. While the necessity and propriety of particular regulations are primarily" of legislative determination, their character, whether reasonable, impartial, and consistent with the state policy, is a question for the court. 13 Tied. Lim. 197; Parker & W. Pub. Health, 68; Dill. Mun. Corp. §§ 319, 325, 329; Mugler v. Kanoar, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. Ct 862. By the enactment in question, the legislature attempted to confer upon the state board of health power to promulgate and enforce reasonable regulations in respect to contagious and epidemic diseases and causes which tend to their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
...judicial one, of which the courts must take cognizance whether the statute provides for proceedings in that regard or not. State v. Speyer, 67 Vt. 502, 32 Atl. 476, 29 L R. A. 573, 48 Am. St. Rep. 832; In re Trustees v. Saratoga, etc., Co., 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 7......
-
George W. Sabre v. Rutland Railroad Company And Central Vermont Railway Co.
...judicial one of which the courts must take cognizance whether the statute provides for proceedings in that regard or not. State v. Speyer, 67 Vt. 502, 32 A. 476; In Re Trustees v. Saratoga Co., 191 N.Y. 123, 83 N.E. 693; State v. Haskell, 84 Vt. 429, 431, 79 A. 852; Brownell v. Russell, 76 ......
-
Bacon v. Boston & M. R. R.
...it must be said in view of all the circumstances, as was said of a certain order under consideration in State v. Speyer, 67 Vt. 502, 32 Atl. 476, 29 L. R. A. 573, 48 Am. St. Rep. 832, that "it reaches beyond the scope of necessary protection and prevention into the domain of restraint of la......
-
J. L. Bacon v. Boston & Maine Railroad Et Al Central Vermont Railway Company v. Town of Hartford
... ... limiting the jurisdiction of the commissioners. The terms of ... this mandate are recited in C. V. Ry. Co. v ... State and town of Hartford , 82 Vt. 145, ... 152, 72 A. 324, which is the second of the cases to which ... this opinion relates ... must be said, in view of all the circumstances, as was said ... of a certain order under consideration in State v ... Speyer , 67 Vt. 502, 32 A. 476, 29 L. R. A. 573, 48 ... Am. St. Rep. 832, that "it reaches beyond the scope of ... necessary protection and prevention ... ...