112 N.Y.S. 936 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1908
■ The ordinance in question was enacted pursuant to section 36 of the charter of the city of Schenectady (Laws of 1903, chap. 371), which authorizes the common council of the city to enact ordinances “ for the government of the city and the management of its business, for the preservation of good order, peace and health, for the safety and welfare of its inhabitants, and the protection and security of their property.”
This ordinance having been passed in pursuance of legislative authority has the force of law and is as obligatory as if it were an act of the Legislature. (City of Buffalo v. New York, Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 276; City of Rochester v. West, 161 id. 510.)
The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power evidently intended to promote the public health and welfare of the community. It is claimed that the prohibition against possession for the purpose of sale should begin at the point when the article ceases to be wholesome and'that the question of wholesomeness or unwholesomeness should be made the test of liability rather than the mere fact of possession irrespective of that question. Manifestly it would be quite difficult, if hot impossible, to fix the line of demarcation between wholesomeness and unwholesomeness in a matter of this kind. The more appropriate test is the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the ordinance having in view the object sought to be attained and the inconvenience or detriment to the dealer against whom the prohibition exists. The end sought by the ordinance is highly commendable having in view the health and sanitary welfare of the community. It imposed on the defendant no unreasonable or oppressive duty. It is in no sense destructive of
The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.