
    William Bamel vs. Building Commissioner of Brookline.
    Suffolk.
    June 12, 1924.
    October 16, 1924.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Bbaley, Pierce, & Wait, JJ.
    
      Building Law, Zoning ordinance. Constitutional Law, Police power: municipal zoning; Ex post facto amendment. Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances.
    
      Brett v. Building Commissioner of Brookline, ante, 73, followed.
    Petition, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on May 6, 1924, for a writ of certiorari directing the respondent to make return of the complete record and proceedings relating to an alleged revocation by him of permits for the construction of buildings in Brookline, to the end that his order of revocation might be quashed.
    The facts were agreed upon. The case was reserved by Carroll, J., for determination by the full court.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    
      M. B. Holsberg & M. B. Lynch, for the petitioner.
    
      R. A. Stewart & C. 0. Pengra, for the respondent.
   Rugg, C.J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the action of the respondent, building commissioner of the town of Brookline, in revoking permits to the petitioner to build houses on lots owned by him. The salient facts in this case are similar in their legal aspects to those under consideration in Brett v. Building Commissioner of Brookline, ante, 73, just decided. The differences are differences of detail and not of substance. The case at bar is governed by the same principles stated in the opinion in that case and requires the same result.

Petition dismissed.  