99 N.Y.S. 306 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1906
This action is for a violation of sections 1, 2 and 22; of an ordinance of the city óf New York relating to businesses requiring a
The likelihood that junk may have been pilfered or stolen is the reason for the restriction, location and regulation of dealers therein. (City of Duluth v. Bloom, 55 Minn. 97 ; Pity of Grand Rapids v. Brandy, supra ; Marmet v. State, supra.) And it is for this reason that other sections require a junk dealer to record in a book a description of every article purchased, the name and residence of the seller and the day and hour of the purchase, which book is open to inspection by the police authorities; prohibit- the trade at any place save as designated in the license; forbid purchases from minors or apprentices, or from any person between sunset and seven o’clock in the morning, and require the dealer to inform the authorities if he have any article in his possession corresponding to one which is advertised as lost or stolen, and .to exhibit to the authorities any article in his possession supposed to be-lost or stolen.
If the mere fact that one purchases and sells material which mgy be generically described as old iron brings him within the purview of the ordinance, then the defendant was liable. But whether or not he is within the ordinance should rather be determined by the general character and scope of his business. (Commonwealth v.
Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Judgment óf. the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs,