City of New Orleans v. Murat

Citations

• 119 La. 1093
• 44 So. 898
• 1907 La. LEXIS 597

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal Corporations — Police Power —Health—Regulation oe Dairies.</p> <p>By Act No. 45, p. 46, of 1896, the city of New Orleans was given express authority and power to regulate the location of, and inspection and cleanliness of, dairies likely to be or become detrimental to health or comfort and to adopt such ordinances and regulations as shall be necessary for the protection of health, and to prevent the spread of disease, and to maintain good sanitary conditions in the streets, etc. In May, 1907, the common council of the city acted under that authority by adopting its Ordinance No. 13,335, which declared that from and after its ' adoption it should not be lawful for any person to carry on a dairy within certain designated limits, and that all dairies then existing by virtue of any previous ordinance of the city should be removed within 10 years from the promulgation of the ordinance. By the fifth section of the ordinance it was provided that any person convicted of the violation of the ordinance should be sentenced to pay a fine of $25 and in default thereof be imprisoned for a period of 30 days.</p> <p>In June, 1907, defendant was charged with a violation of this ordinance by failing to remove his dairy from within the limits designated by the ordinance. He excepted that the ordinance was illegal and unconstitutional on a number of grounds, but they were overruled, and he was convicted and sentenced. None of the grounds of complaint urged are well grounded.</p> <p>Held, that the right and power of the city to prohibit the carrying on of dairies inside of certain limits therein, when that power is exercised in the interest of public health, is undoubted. It is to be presumed that the common council, charged by law with the determination of that question, has not acted capriciously, oppressively, or arbitrarily, but that it has acted in and for the best interests of the people of New Orleans. The proposition contended for by accused that, by reason of hi