State (Hudson, Com.) v. George E. Cleaveland

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State (Hudson, Com.) v. George E. Cleaveland

3 R.I. 117

DecidedMarch 6, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 3 R.I. 117 (State (Hudson, Com.) v. George E. Cleaveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State (Hudson, Com.) v. George E. Cleaveland, 3 R.I. 117 (R.I. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Staples, C. J.

— This complaint was instituted under tbe third section of tbe city ordinance in.relation to sidewalks. City Ord. p. 182. Tbe former part of tbe section declares that no awning shall be placed or continued over any sidewalk, unless tbe same shall be constructed of cloth or canvass and- supported by iron rods, and every part of such awning and of tbe supports thereof shall be at least eight feet above tbe sidewalk,” but no penalty is attached to any breach of this clause. It then continues “ and every person who shall spread or suffer any person or persons in his employment to spread any awning contrary to the provisions of this section, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten dollars.” The respondent is charged with a breach of this clause of the ordinance. His plea clearly shows that he has not broken the same. When he erected and put up his awning, he had full legal right so to do. No city ordinance was in existence forbidding it. Since September 1,1854, he has neither spread or authorized to be spread any awning against the ordinance of the city. He has continued an awning over a sidewalk, other and different from the awnings prescribed by that ordinance and against its provisions, but no penalty is affixed to that act, and the complaint is not prosecuted for a breach of that clause of it.

The judgment of the Police Court was erroneous, and the proceedings must be quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Staples, C. J.

— This complaint was instituted under tbe third section of tbe city ordinance in.relation to sidewalks. City Ord. p. 182. Tbe former part of tbe section declares that no awning shall be placed or continued over any sidewalk, unless tbe same shall be constructed of cloth or canvass and- supported by iron rods, and every part of such awning and of tbe supports thereof shall be at least eight feet above tbe sidewalk,” but no penalty is attached to any breach of this clause. It then continues “ and every person who shall spread or suffer any person or persons in his employment to spread any awning contrary to the provisions of this section, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten dollars.” The respondent is charged with a breach of this clause of the ordinance. His plea clearly shows that he has not broken the same. When he erected and put up his awning, he had full legal right so to do. No city ordinance was in existence forbidding it. Since September 1,1854, he has neither spread or authorized to be spread any awning against the ordinance of the city. He has continued an awning over a sidewalk, other and different from the awnings prescribed by that ordinance and against its provisions, but no penalty is affixed to that act, and the complaint is not prosecuted for a breach of that clause of it.

The judgment of the Police Court was erroneous, and the proceedings must be quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 R.I. 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-hudson-com-v-george-e-cleaveland-ri-1855.