| State v. Hyman, 98 Md. 596
OVERVIEW: The indictment against defendant alleged that he violated the Act by using a tenement for the manufacture of garments by other than immediate family members, using such tenement and not being a member of the family living there, using such tenement without obtaining a permit, and failing to keep a register of the persons to whom work was given. The trial court sustained his demurrer. On appeal,
the court reversed. The court held that the Act was constitutional as an exercise of the state's police power. The Act was intended for the preservation and protection of
the public health and safety, and there was nothing in the Act that indicated that its purpose did not have a real and substantial relation to the police power. It was a
matter of judicial notice that the manufacture of garments in improperly ventilated, unsanitary, and overcrowded apartments would likely promote the spread of disease.
Thus, the State could regulate the number of persons there. The provision relating to the register was proper to enable health officers to trace where the work was being
done. The Act invaded no private right of property and did not confer arbitrary or unrestricted power upon any official.
See MSA SC 5339-62-87.
|
