State v. Tyrrell

• Decision Date: 18 December 1900
• Citation: 73 Conn. 407,47 A. 686
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. TYRRELL.

47 A. 686

73 Conn. 407

STATE

v. TYRRELL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 18, 1900.

Appeal from district court of Waterbury; George H. Cowell, Judge.

Information against Fred. A. Tyrrell for violating a city ordinance. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the information, the state appeals. Affirmed.

This was an information charging the violation of a city ordinance of the city of Waterbury. The defendant was first prosecuted in the city court, and appealed to the district court in and for the district of Waterbury. The information was in five counts. The first one is this: "That on the 16th day of March, 1899, at said city and town of Waterbury, within said district, Fred. A. Tyrrell, now of said Waterbury, being then in the business of selling and delivering milk in the said city of Waterbury, with force and arms did then and there, as a part of said business of selling and delivering milk, in said city of Waterbury as aforesaid, unlawfully offer and expose for sale certain milk without first having obtained from the board of health of said city of Waterbury a license so to do, against the peace, of evil example, and contrary to the ordinance of said city of Waterbury in such case made and provided." The other counts are identical with this one, save that in the second one the unlawful act is, did "sell certain milk"; in the third, "have in his possession with Intent to sell"; in the fourth, "deliver for sale certain milk"; and in the fifth, "deliver for consumption certain milk." The ordinance of the city is, in substance, set out in the case of State v. Gallagher, 72 Conn. 605, 45 Atl. 430. The defendant demurred to the information. The court sustained the demurrer, and the state has appealed. There is really but one assignment of error,—that the court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer.

Nathaniel R. Bronson, Pros. Atty., for the State.

Albert P. Bradstreet, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. (after stating the facts). There is no error. The information is insufficient. Judging the ordinance of the city of Waterbury, set forth in the statement, by its words, we should be led to believe that the purpose of the board of aldermen in passing it was to prevent the sale and consumption in that city of impure or adulterated milk. To accomplish that purpose, the ordinance is intelligent, consecutive, and adapted to the end in view. Bu the charter of the city forbids the board of aldermen to enact any ordinance upon any matter which is or shall hereafter be regulated by any public statute, on the power to regulate which has been or shall be conferred upon any other authority by any public statute. The General Statutes of 1888 (sections 2658, 26...