
    E. Giardina v. The City of Greenville.
    1, Municipal Okdinancio. Violation. Placing goods on sidewalk. Sufficiency of charge.
    
    Under an ordinance making it unlawful to place any goods on a sidewalk, an affidavit charging defendant with obstructing a sidewalk by allowing barrels to remain thereon, without averring that he placed them there, charges no offense.
    2. iSamb. Strictness. Articles designated. Ejusdein generis.
    
    An ordinance which prohibits placing on a sidewalk “ straw, chips, dirt, shells, tin cans, iron hoops, swill, nails, iron, glass, fruit peelings, melon rinds, shavings, rags, hair or such rubbish,” is not violated by allowing barrels to remain on the sidewalk, obstructing it. Though they may contain the things mentioned, or have iron hoops and nails in their makeup, barrels are not embraced in the enumeration.
    Prom the circuit court of Washington county.
    I-Ion. R. W. Williamson, Judge.
    Appellant was convicted in the mayor’s court on an affidavit, as follows:
    
      “ The State oe Mississippi, ] Washington County, ■ • City of Greenville.)
    
    Personally appeared before mayor of said city, W. H. wbo> being dnly BWOnlj deposes and says that in said city, on the twenty-ninth day of October, 1892, one E. Giardina did obstruct the public sidewalks and streets in said city, in front of his store on Washington avenue, by allowing and permitting certain barrels to remain thereon, in violation of the ordinance in that behalf, and against the peace and dignity of the city of Greenville.” Section 1 of the ordinances of the city of Greenville provides that it shall be deemed a misdemeanor to do, or cause to be done, any of the following acts :
    “ (26) To place in or upon any sidewalk any goods, wares or merchandise or poultry or other thing of any kind or character whatsoever, or to exhibit on said street any goods or other things for sale or show.
    “ (40) Eor any person to place any straw, chips, dirt, shells, tin cans and iron hoops, swill, nails, iron, glass, fruit peelings, melon rinds, shavings, rags or hair, whether offensive to health or not, and whether it amounts to an obstruction or not, or to permit any such rubbish to be thrown by others, or to remain in front of one’s house or business place in any street, alley or sidewalk of said city.”
    An appeal was taken to the circuit court, where a motion was made by defendant to quash the affidavit, on the ground that it charged no violation of the ordinances. This motion was overruled, and the defendant was again convicted. .Hence this appeal.
    
      Wasson Wasson, for appellant.
    The affidavit is claimed to have been made for a violation of paragraph 26, § 1, page 44, of the ordinances of the city, of Greenville. The ordinance, being penal, must be strictly construed. Nothing can be added by implication.- State v. Nichols, 39 Miss., 318.
    The ordinance does not make it a misdemeanor to permit 
      any thing to remain on the sidewalk. To constitute a violation, there must be a placing upon the sidewalk some of the things forbidden. *
    Neither does the ordinance provide against the obstruction of the streets by placing such articles thereon.
    It is not contended that appellant placed the barrels on the sidewalk, or directed them to be placed there, or that he even knew that they were there. The charge is simply that he permitted the barrels to remain on the sidewalk, and this is no offense under the ordinance. Nothing short of chai'ging appellant with placing upon the sidewalk the articles forbidden would show a violation.
    
      0. H. Perry and J. M. Jayne, for appellee.
    This case comes clearly within the provisions of the charter of the city of Greenville, under which the ordinance in'question was adopted. The ordinance is paragraph 40 of § 1, and is to be found on page 45 of the charter and ordinances of the city. A fair construction of the charter and ordinance referred to leaves no doubt whatever that the judgment is correct, and it should be affirmed.
   Campbell, C. J".,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Tried by the ordinance under which the appellant’s counsel says the affidavit was made and the conviction had, the affidavit is bad, and tested by the ordinance relied on by the counsel of the appellee to'sustain the conviction, the affidavit is not good, and the motion to quash should have been sustained. The thing mentioned in the affidavit (“barrels”) is not charged to have been placed upon the sidewalk by the defendant, and therefore the offense denounced by the twenty-sixth clause, page 44, of the charter and ordinances of Green-ville is not charged; and barrels are neither “ straw, chips, dirt, shells, tin cans, iron hoops, swill, nails, iron, glass, fruit peelings, melon rinds, shavings, rags, hair, or such rubbish,” although they might contain such things, or have iron hoops around them, and nails in their make-up, and therefore the affidavit does not charge a violation of the fortieth subdivision on page 45 of the charter and ordinances. We assume that these are the only provisions of the ordinances applicable, as no other is invoked by either party.

Reversed, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance 'with lato.  