
    Bush and others against Seabury.
    By the Act powers in the freeholders and inhabitants of the village of Poughkeepsie” passed the 8th April, 1801, (sess. 24 c. 182.) the trustees of the tillage have power to make a by-law to prevent the sale of meat, &c. for the consumption of the inhabitants, within certain preserved limits, except at the public market place; and an action may be maintained, by the trustees, to recover the penalty given for every offence against sueh by-law.
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The plaintiffs in error, as trustees of the village of Pough
      keepsie, brought an action of debt against the defendant, fo; five penalties or forfeitures, under the act of the legislature, entitled “ An act to vest certain powers in the freeholders and inhabitants of the village of Poughkeepsie.passed the 8th April, 1801, (seas. 24. c. 182.) and a certain by-law of the corporation of the village of Poughkeepsie, entitled “ A lav/ to regulate the public market of the village of Poughkeepsie, and to prevent forestalling the same,” passed June 12, 1809.” The defendant pleaded nil debet. There was a trial by jury.
    The plaintiffs read in evidence the act of the legislature which declares, “ Thai it shall be lawful for the trustees of the said village, or the major part of them, and their successors, to make, ordain and publish such prudential by-laws, rules and regulations, as they, from time to time, shall deem meet and proper, and such in particular, as are relative to public markets within the said village, and relative to streets,” etc. “ and relative to any thing whatsoever that may concern the public and good government of the said village; but no such bylaws shall extend to the regulating or ascertaining the prices of any commodities or articles of provision, except the article of bread, that may be offered for sale.” (s. 3.) They also read the by-lav/ of the corporation, by the second section of which it was ordained, that after the 1 st July, no person or persons should, within certain limits, particularly set forth, and described, “ hawk about any kind of beef, pork, veal, mutton, or any other kind of meat by selling the same for the consumption of the inhabitants, and that any person wishing to sell the same, for the purpose aforesaid, shall repair to the public market-house, and there expose the same for sale,” &c. under the penalty of five dollars for every offence.
    Three offences, by the defendant, in selling meat, out of his wagon, within the limits mentioned in the by-law, were proved. The justice charged the jury, that the trustees of the village of Poughkeepsie had no power to 
      pass such a by-law, and that the same was illegal and void; and further, that the plaintiffs could not recover jn this action more than a single penalty. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
    
      Puggles, for the plaintiffs in error.
    Oakley, contra.
   Per Curiam.

1’he act incorporating the village of Poughkeepsie, authorizes the trustees to make by-laws, relative to public markets within the said village, &c, and relative to any thing whatsoever that may concern the public apd good government of the said village, but no such by-laws shall extend to the regulating or ascertaining the prices of any commodities or articles of provision, except the article of bread, that may be offered for sale.” Without this special exception, it would seem that even the regulation of the price of provisions might, in the opinion of tire legislature, have been included ún-der the general authority contained in this provision. The fixing the place and times at which markets shall be held and kept open, and the prohibition to sell at other places and times, is among the most ordinary regulations of a city or town police, and would naturally be inclu. ded in the general power to pass laws relative to the public markets. If the corporation had not the povver in question, it is difficult to. see what useful purpose could be effected, or what object was intended, by the grant of the power to pass laws “ relative to the public markets.” The mere regulation of the building and of the stalls of those who might cho.ose to go there, instead of elsewhere, to sell their market provision, would be an idle and useless power, and of no moment towards the good government of the village. Extravagant cases may be stated of the abuse of the power, as by an ordinance to re» >ulate the sale of wheat, &c. but this is not a logical way ° . b 3 to test the existence or the power.

There was no objection taken in the court below to the manner in which the corporation sued, nor as to the place where the offences were proved to have been committed. The declaration was by the plaintiffs, in their corporate style, and we must intend that they duly appeared, and that the sales by the defendant were within the prescribed limits, and that the verdict was founded on the charge of the justice that the by-law was illegal and void. That charge being erroneous, the verdict was also wrong, and the judgment must be reversed.

judgment reversed,»  