Section 5, providing that every person may freely speak, write or publish on all subjects, b;ing responsible for the abuse of that lib erty. In sustaining the ordinance the court says that it is manifestly a police regulation intended to further the public health and safety by preventing the accumulation ot large quantities of waste paper upon the streets and alleys, which might occasion dan ger from fire, choke up and obstruct gutters and catch-basins, and keep the streets in an unclean and filthy condition. A police regu lation is not invalid simply because it may incidentally affect the exercise of some con stitutional right. The test is whether the regulation is a bona fide exercise of police power, or an arbitrary and unreasonable in terference with the rights of individuals un der the guise of a police regulation. Citing Wenham z State, 91 Northwestern Report er 421, 58 Lawyers' Reports Annotated 825. The ordinance in question is clearly valid. It has no reference to or connection with freedom of speech or of the press, and its plain purpose is, not to interfere with the publication of sentiments and opinions oí in dividuals, but to promote the cleanliness and safety of the municipality. State v. Bair, 92 Iowa 28, 60 Northwestern Reporter 486; United States r. Newton, 20 District Colum bia 226; Beck т1. Railway Teamsters' Protec tive Union, 118 Michigan 497, 77 North western Reporter 13, 42 Lawyers' Reports Annotated 407, 74 American State Reporter 421; Commonwealth z'. Davis, 162 Massa chusetts 510, 39 Northeastern 113, 26 law yers' Reports Annotated 712, 44 American State Reporter 389, are all cited as contain ing adjudications analogous to the one here made. POLICE POWER. (LICENSE ORDINANCE-REASON. ABLENKSS—VERDICT FOR LESS THAN TAX IM POSED EFFECT.) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
In Postal Telegraph Telegraph-Cable Co. i: Tiorough of New Hope, 24 Supreme Court Reporter 204, the Borough sued the Telegraph Company, which was doing an interstate business, to recover license fees on poles and wires. The court submitted
to the jury the question of the reasonableness of the ordinance imposing the license tax, stating that its verdict would be advisory merely, and instructing it to find for the plaintiff in the full amount if the ordinance was thought reasonable, otherwise to find for -defendant. The jury found for the plain tiff in a less sum than that contemplated by the ordinance, and the court directed the en tering of judgment thereon. In reviewing this judgment the United States Supreme Court says that it amounts to a determination of the unreasonableness and consequent in validity of the ordinance, and the act of the jury in finding a lesser sum for plaintiff was an attempt by that body to itself exercise the taxing power. When the verdict was ren dered and the court directed judgment to be entered thereon it must have thereby con curred with the jury and held the ordinance unreasonable and therefore void, for, if the ordinance was valid, the court would have directed judgment for the full sum without reference to the verdict. Neither court nor jury had any power whatever to give judg ment for what either might regard as a rea sonable sum, if that were less than the amount provided for in the ordinance. The source of jurisdiction to give any verdict or judgment for the plaintiff was the ordinance. If the amount of the license fee provided for therein was unreasonable, the ordinance was void, and neither court nor jury could sub stitute its own judgment as to what was rea sonable, and give a verdict or direct a judg ment for that sum. Western Union Tel Co. v. New Hope, 187 U. S. 419, 47 L. ed. 240, 23 Supreme Court 204, is distinguished from the case at bar, and Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. r. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 1660, 47 L. ed. 995' 23 Supreme Court 817, is cited as to the propriety of leaving the reasonableness of the ordinance to the jury. SALES. (KREACH OF WARRANTY OF ANIMAL'S SOUNDNESS — EXISTENCE OF TUBERCULOSIS — VENDOR'S IGNORANCE.) DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT.
In Cummins г>. Ennis, 56 All. Rep. 377. plaintiff sued for the alleged breach of a
