Commonwealth v. Patch
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint for keeping one swine in violation of by-laws of the city of Springfield, entitled “ Ordinances for the better preservation of the public health,” which prohibited the keeping or maintaining of swine within certain districts of the city, under a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars for each offence.
Read the full summary
Complaint for keeping one swine in violation of by-laws of the city of Springfield, entitled “ Ordinances for the better preservation of the public health,” which prohibited the keeping or maintaining of swine within certain districts of the city, under a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars for each offence. City Ordinances of Springfield, Nos. 77, 79. At the trial in the superior court, on appeal from the judgment of the police court of Springfield, the defendant admitted that he kept a swine as alleged, and asked the judge to rule that the city had no right or power to enact these by-laws,…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The defendant, who has been convicted of the violation of an ordinance of the city of Springfield, which prohibited the keeping of swine within certain parts of that city, excepts to the ruling at the trial which sustained the validity of the ordinance.
The reasonableness of the ordinance, as applied to the particular territory in question, is not now to be considered! because the facts upon which it would depend are not reported. We may presume that the territory, within which the ordinance operates, is the most populous and thickly settled part of the city; and that particular sanitary…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Van Hook v. City of SelmaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- City of Taunton v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Lincoln v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Cox v. SegeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Commonwealth v. KimballMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.