Commonwealth v. Stodder
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
These were complaints against the several defendants, for oreadles of an ordinance of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Boston, adopted on the 12th of July, 1847, under and by virtue of the act of 1847, c. 224, for the purpose of regulating the use of hackney coaches and other vehicles within the city.
Read the full summary
These were complaints against the several defendants, for oreadles of an ordinance of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Boston, adopted on the 12th of July, 1847, under and by virtue of the act of 1847, c. 224, for the purpose of regulating the use of hackney coaches and other vehicles within the city. The first section of the act of 1847, c. 224, entitled “ An act to prevent obstructions in the streets of cities, and to regulate hackney coaches and other vehicles,” provides as follows : — “ The mayor and aldermen of any city in this commonwealth shall have power, from time to time, to…
1Opinion of the Court
Dewet, J.*
The present case comes before us on exceptions to the ruling of the municipal court, upon the trial of a complaint originally instituted in the police court for the city of Boston, and carried by appeal to the municipal court.
The defendant admitted, upon the trial, that he had driven an omnibus set up by a citizen of Roxbury, which carriage ran several times each day from the centre of the most populous part of the city of Roxbury, through the public streets of the city of Boston, for the conveyance of passengers, for hire, to and from Roxbury and Boston, and that he drove the same…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McDonald v. City of ParagouldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- State v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900