
    Cathcart v. The Fire Department of the City of New York.
    'Chapter 291 of 1846, § 20, exempts from the penalties, elsewhere prescribed ' in that act, a vessel receiving gunpowder on freight within the prohibited limits, though such gunpowder be not received from licensed dealers.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of New York City. Action for the seizure and appropriation of 315 kegs of gunpowder. On the trial these facts appeared: The powder was received at 10 A. M., on a vessel bound to Pensacola, then lying at the pier foot of Twelfth street in the city of New York. It was'put on board from a small schooner, loaded the night before from a magazine on the shore of New Jersey. The vessel was cleared and ready for sea. ■ An hour after the powder was received, it was seized by fire-wardens on behalf of the defendant and removed, as forfeited for an alleged violation of the statute relative to powder in the city of New York. The judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court at general term. The court there held that the powder was lawfully seized, and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff appealed to this court.
    
      Isaiah T. Williams, for the appellant.
    
      John H. Reynolds, for the respondent.
   Rosekrans, J.

The provisions of the 20th section of chapter 291 of the Laws of 1846 are broad enough to protect the gunpowder, which is the subject of this action, from forfeiture, under the provisions of the 18th section of the act. The latter section declares that all gunpowder found within the limits specified in the first section of the act, shall be forfeited to the use of the fire department. The limits specified in the first section are that part of the city of New York lying south of a line running through the center of Sixty-second street (Laws of 1849, chapter 206), from the East to the North river. The powder in question was found on board of a vessel lying at a wharf within the prohibited district, but it was received as freight on board the vessel on which it was seized, between the hours of 8 and 11 o’clock, A. H.

The 20th section of the act declares that the penalties and provisions of the act shall not extend to any vessel receiving gunpowder on freight, provided such vessel do not remain at any wharf of the said city, or within 300 yards thereof, after sunset (of the day on which the gunpowder is put on board) or on any other day while having gunpowder, on board. The vessel was ready, and had orders to proceed to sea on the day the gunpowder was received on board, and was only prevented from so doing by the illegal interference of the fire wardens. The powder was seized before 12 o’clock at noon of the day it was put on board the vessel, and we have no right to presume that the vessel would have remained within the prohibited distance of the wharf after sunset of that day.

It is claimed by the defendants that the 20th section only applies to vessels receiving gunpowder on board, within the prohibited district, from licensed dealers in gunpowder, under the provisions of the 3d section of the act. As before remarked, the language of the 20th section is broad enough to include all vessels receiving gunpowder on freight, whether-from licensed dealers or other persons. If it was the intention of the framers of the act to restrict the exemption to vessels receiving gunpowder on freight from licensed dealers, they doubtless would have used language to express that intention, and none other. The act is highly penal, and should be strictly construed.

It may also be observed that to protect from forfeiture under section 13 of the act, gunpowder put on board of vessels within the prohibited district, by licensed dealers, no such-provision was necessary as is contained in the 20th section. The 3d section makes it lawful for licensed dealers in gunpowder to • send it in the day-time, in quantities not more than five quarter casks at one time, through the streets of the city, if covered completely and securely with a.leathern or canvas bag or case, to a vessel within the prohibited district, and by necessary implication, it authorizes such gunpowder to be put on board of such vessel. The language of the section is as follows : “If the same (such gunpowder) be put on board of any vessel within such district, such vessel shall, before sundown, haul into the stream, to a distance of not less than 300 yards from any dock, wharf, pier or bulkhead, and shall not at any time until 8 o’clock of the morning, while such powder is on board, lie within 300 yards of any dock, wharf, pier or bulkhead of said city.” Clearly, as this, section declares it to be lawful for licensed dealers to put gunpowder on board of a vessel within the prohibited district, , it was useless to declare that such gunpowder was not subjected to forfeiture. .The 3d section also provides that a vessel receiving gunpowder on board from licensed dealers shall, before sunset, haul into the stream 300 yards from any dock, and shall not, before 8 o’clock, A. M., while such gunpowder is on board, lie within 300 yards of any wharf in the city. It was unnecessary to repeat these provisions in the 20th section to protect such gunpowder. The 20th section, we must assume (if we would not charge the law makers with consummate folly), was intended to exempt- from forfeiture gunpowder which was not already exempted. The legislature was doubtless aware of the fact that the explosive force of gunpowder on board of a vessel was neither greater nor more detrimental when the powder was put on board by a person having no license, than if put on board by a licensed dealer. There is no reason for exempting from forfeiture powder put on board of a vessel by. a licensed dealer which does not exist in favor of the exemption of the same article put on board by other parties. The legislature is also to be presumed to- have been cognizant of the fact that it is much less hazardous to load powder upon a vessel lying at a wharf, by means of small boats, than by means of carts passing through the streets of the city. It could not have been intended that all the powder put on board of vessels on freight, within the prohibited district, should be taken to such vessels in the mode most dangerous to property and life. It is sufficient to say that such intention is not expressed in the act, but that, on the contrary, the^Oth section declares that the provisions of the act shall not extend to any vessel receiving gunpowder on freight, provided such vessel does not remain at any wharf, dock, pier or bulkhead of said city, or within 300 yards thereof, after sunset of the day the powder is put on board, or on any other day while having such gunpowder on board.

The right to receive gunpowder on freight upon a vessel within the prohibited district, under the conditions specified, being granted, the ordinary reasonable means of enjoying such right should also be held to be granted.

The language of the 20th section would authorize vessels' coming into the harbor of New York from other ports, with gunpowder on board, to tranship such gunpowder to another vessel, subject to the conditions of that section, as to hauling into the stream. The 4th section of the act, however, provides that the commander or owner of every ship or vessel arriving in the harbor of New York, with more than 28 pounds of gunpowder on board, shall, within 48 hours after its arrival, and before such ship or vessel shall approach within 300 yards of any wharf, pier or slip within the prohibited district, cause such gunpowder to be landed by means of a boat or boats, or other small craft, at any place without such district most contiguous to any magazine for storing gunpowder, and cause it to be stored in such magazine. The 5th section authorizes such ship or vessel to proceed to sea within 48 hours after her arrival,or to tranship such gunpowder from one ship to another, for the purpose of immediate exportation, without landing such gunpowder as required by the 4th section, but in case such vessel proceeds to sea, or such transhipment is made, it is declared unlawful to keep said gunpowder longer than 48 hours within the harbor of New York, or to approach with such gunpowder within 300 yards of any wharf, pier or slip within the prohibited district. It may be conceded that these provisions in relation to vessels arriving in the harbor of New York, with gunpowder, are more stringent than those applied to other vessels receiving gunpowder on board under the 3d section of the act, from licensed dealers, or under the 20th section of the act, from such dealers or other persons. And it is difficult to perceive why the legislature should have made it lawful for each and every of the licensed dealers in gunpowder within the city to put five quarter casks or one hundred pounds of gunpowder at one time, upon a vessel lying at a wharf within the prohibited district, and at the same time make it unlawful for the commander of a vessel arriving in the harbor of New York with 29 pounds of gunpowder on board, to approach within three hundred yards of any wharf within the prohibited district, or to tranship such gunpowder upon another vessel within the same distance of such wharf. e

We can only say that the act contains such provisions. Under the 3d section of the act, one hundred licensed dealers in gunpowder might have as many carts, each carrying through the streets of the city and delivering to a vessel lying at a wharf within the prohibited district, at the same time, five quarter casks of gunpowder, or in all five hundred quarter casks, and under the 4th and 5th sections of the act, 29 pounds of gunpowder on board of a vessel arriving in the harbor of New York, cannot approach within 300. yards of such wharf, or be permitted to remain within the harbor of New York more than 48 hours. We can only say that the legislature is omnipotent, except where its powers are restricted by the Constitution.

The 4th and 5 th sections of the act do not, however, by their terms, extend to any other vessels than such as arrive within the harbor of New York with gunpowder on board; they do. not apply to a vessel taking gunpowder on board, outside of the limits of the city of New York, and yet within the harbor of New York. That was the case of the. powder company’s schooner which brought the powder in question within the district mentioned in the first section of the act. The powder was put on board of the schooner within the harbor of New York. It is not necessary, in this case, to decide whether, after this schooner arrived within the district mentióned in the first section of the act, the gunpowder on- board of it was subject to forfeiture before it was put on board of. the plaintiff’s vessel, on'freight. Conceding that it was subject to forfeiture before it was removed from the schooner, while it lay within the prohibited district, it was not found by the fire wardens until it was taken out of the prohibited district, and out of a forfeitable condition, by being received on freight upon a vessel to which the penalties and provisions of the act did not extend. I do not, however, think that the powder was subject to seizure and forfeiture while it was upon the schooner.

The right to put the powder on the plaintiff’s vessel, on freight, is given by the 20th section of -the act, and all means of enjoying that right, not prohibited, are lawful, and the 4th and 5th sections of the act do not apply to the powder company’s schooner or the powder on board of it. The case is omitted in the act, and it is better that it should be provided for by the legislature than that the courts should viólate the unambiguous language of the statute, and usurp a power. belonging to another branch of the Government. The province of the Court is/ms dicere non dare.

We entertain no doubt that the action was properly brought under the 10th section of the act against the fire department of the city of New York for the acts of the fire wardens.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Davies, Wright, Selden and Emott, Js., concurred.

Denio, Ch. J., (dissenting).

The first section of the act in relation to the keeping of gunpowder, &e., in the city of New York, declares it to be unlawful “to have or keep, any quantity of [that article] in any one house, store, building or other place,” in that city, “to the southward óf a line running through the centre of Forty-second street, from the North to the East river.” (Laws 1846, ch. 291.) Section eighteen of the same act subjects every offender against its provisions to a fine of five hundred dollars for each offence, and declares that all gunpowder or saltpetre found within the limits specified in the first section shall be forfeited to the use of the fire department ; and the sixth section provides that in every case of a violation of any provision of the act, where the penalty prescribed thereby for such violation is the forfeiture of any gunpowder to the fire department, it shall be lawful for any fire warden of the said city to seize such gunpowder, in the daytime, and to cause the same to be conveyed to any magazine used for the purpose of storing gunpowder.

If we construe these provisions according to a common intent, the powder in question was legally forfeited, and was properly seized by the parties authorized to make the seizure. The vessel from which it was taken was within the district mentioned, for it was moored at a pier south of the line referred to. The term place, used in the act, is a word of very large signification. Literally, it embraces the hold of a vessel as well as a place of deposit on land; and the words, “ to have or keep,” particularly the former, would properly qualify any kind of possession or custody to which personal property could be subjected. The case, therefore, falls clearly within the language of the statute, and unless a contrary intention can be gathered from an examination of all its provisions, the conclusion of the Supreme Court affirming the alleged forfeiture must be considered correct. So far as I can perceive, the mischief intended to be provided against, which was the hazard of life and property from the explosion of gunpowder, would be about equally great where the place of deposit was a vessel lying at a wharf or pier, or in close proximity to a wharf or pier, as if it were in a store or other place for storage on land. There does not seem to be anything, therefore, in the nature of the case to prevent the application of the statute. There is, as has been argued,. a principle of construction, by which words of a general and indeterminate signification, when used in immediate connection with others of á more definite meaning, are to have a limited interpretation on account of such association; and hence there is considerable plausibility in the suggestion that in the phrase “ house, store, building or other place” the last named words should be held to indicate some fixed place of deposit on land, of the general character of a house, store or building, and should not be considered as embracing a movable thing like a vessel or floating structure, such as this schooner was. If there was nothing else in the act favoring the construction for which the plaintiff contends, I should be embarrassed by this principle of construction, which, besides being supported by adjudged cases, is consonant to common sense and to obvious rules of literary criticism. But the third section of the act provides an exception, which seems to assume that vessels lying near the shore are embraced in the prohibition. It declares it to be lawful for dealers in gunpowder in Hew York to have not exceediñg five quarter casks of powder at one time on the walk in front of their stores, for the purpose of packing it and sending it on board of a vessel within the district; but it requires that the vessel shall, before sundown, haul into the stream a distance’ of at least three hundred yards from any dock or pier, and shall not at any time, until eight o’clock of the morning, while such powder is on board, lie within that distance of a dock or pier. The fourth section provides for the case of vessels arriving in the harbor laden with powder to an amount greater than twenty-eight pounds. Such vessels are required, within forty-eight hours after their arrival, -and without approaching within three hundred yards of any wharf south of the line mentioned, to cause the powder.to be landed in small boats at some place without the limits, to be stored in a magazine. These provisions show, in the first place, that the waters of the harbor were regarded by the legislature as embraced in the district designated in the first section, within which it was forbidden to have or keep gunpowder; and, in the next place, that it was thought judicious, in the interests of tjade and commerce, to make certain exceptions to the otherwise universal rule of exclusion; and the fourth section is very decisive to the same purpose.

The twentieth section of the act is strongly relied on by the defendants’ counsel, as exempting vessels taking on board, gunpowder, under the circumstances, appearing in this case, from the operation of the act. It declares that the penalties and provisions of the act shall not extend to any vessel receiving gunpowder as freight, provided súch vessel do not remain at any wharf in said city, or within three hundred yards thereof, after sunset, or on any other day whilst having gunpowder on board. At first view, it would seem to allow the loading of vessels with gunpowder, without limit as to quantity, of restriction as to the place where the vessel might be moored; and this is its effect, unless it is controlled by the' prior sections to which reference has been made. But I am’ of opinion that it is controlled .by those prior provisions. By section three, powder in limited quantities may be put on board a vessel from any part of the . city; and by section four, vessels arriving in the harbor, having to exceed twenty-eight pounds on board, may cause it to be put into small boats, to be landed at some place without the district; but the vessel so laden is not to approach within three hundred yards of any wharf. The powder in question, which was seized by the firewarden, greatly exceeded in quantity the amount allowed to be put on board a vessel by section three; and, besides, it did not-come from the store of a dealer in the city.

If the 20th section allows only such lading of powder as is permitted by those sections, and I think it is thus limited, it afforded no protection to the plaintiff. I think this-twentieth section was inserted for greater caution, in order to protect, by direct language, the transactions allowed by the third, fourth and fifth sections.

If I am right in these conclusions, it follows that the judgment appealed from was correct, and that it ought to be affirmed. A different construction, however, prevails with the other judges, which leads to the reversal of the judgment, and the award of a new trial; and that will be the judgment of the court.

Balcom, J., dissented; Marvin, J., expressed no opinion.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

CASES DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OP THE STATE OF NEW YORK, June Term, 1863.  