Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

121 Mass. 356

Commonwealth v. Wilkins

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 20, 1876

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1876-11-20

Complaint to the First District Court of Essex, alleging that the defendant, on October 9, 1875, did, with a certain vehicle, occupy a stand within the limits of the market of the city of Salem; and, after being ordered by the clerk of the market to remove therefrom, refused so to do, and remained therein for the ¿pace of an hour thereafter.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1968

2 state decisions

Relies on Mayor of New-York v. Ordrenan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-11-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gray, C. J.

¶1The power conferred by the Legislature upon

¶2the city council to pass by-laws and ordinances is limited to such as are reasonable, and the penalties prescribed by which do not exceed twenty dollars for one offence. Austin v. Murray, 16 Pick. 121. St. 1836, c. 42, § 20. Gen. Sts. c. 18, § 11; c. 19, § 2. A by-law or ordinance, imposing a penalty which may exceed this limit, is beyond the power conferred by the Legislature, un ■ reasonable, and wholly void. The ordinance before us undertakes to authorize the imposition of a penalty of not less than one dollar, nor more than five dollars, for every hour that a person shall keep his wagon in the market, without authority of the clerk of the market, after notice to remove and until actual removal. The offence thus punished is a single continuous offence; and the ordinance, affixing a penalty which, computed according to its terms, may exceed twenty dollars for a single offence upon one and the same day, is void. Mayor, ¿-a. of New York v. Ordrenan, 12 Johns. 122. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the other objections to the conviction.

¶3Verdict set aside.

/121/mass/356 · .json · Public domain