Does its requirement have a real and substantial relation to the protection of that interest or, generally, to the protection of the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public? (People ex rel.Pinello v.Lead bitter, 194 Misc. 481, affd. 275 App.Div. 864, affd. 301 N.Y. 695.)

Order sustaining a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that an ordinance of the city of Poughkeepsie, insofar as it purported to fix the opening and closing hours of barber shops, is unconstitutional, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Carswell, Acting P.J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [ 194 Misc. 481.]

Under these broad rubrics, some municipal legislation regulating hours has been held invalid, e.g., Cowan v. City of Buffalo ( 247 App. Div. 591 [4th Dept., 1936]) (Buffalo ordinance forbidding open-air fruit and vegetable stands to be open on Sunday or weekdays from 7:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. held invalid, the court saying however [p. 596]: "We do not pretend to say that the city cannot legally close markets of this character during some part of each twenty-four hours"); People ex rel. Pinello v. Leadbitter ( 194 Misc. 481, affd. 275 App. Div. 864, affd. 301 N.Y. 695) (Poughkeepsie ordinance forbidding barbers to be open earlier than 8:30 A.M. or later than 6:30 P.M. held invalid).

The court, after citing a Michigan case, said (p. 695): "As is observed in the case last cited, the police power is not designed to aid one group in a community against another, as the courts of this State have frequently had occasion to hold ( Defiance Milk Prods. Co. v. Du Mond, 309 N.Y. 537 * * *)." In People ex rel. Pinello v. Leadbitter ( 194 Misc. 481, affd. 275 App. Div. 864, affd. 301 N.Y. 695) the court held a city ordinance providing that barbershops should not be opened before 8:30 A.M. and closed not later than 6:30 P.M., unconstitutional. In Pratter v. Lascoff ( 140 Misc. 211, affd. 236 App. Div. 713, affd. 261 N.Y. 509) the court, upon the authority of Liggett Co. v. Baldridge ( 278 U.S. 105), held that so much of the then sections 1352 Educ. and 1354 Educ. of the Education Law as forbade the issuance by the State Board of Pharmacy of a certificate of ownership of a pharmacy to the plaintiff who was not a licensed pharmacist was unconstitutional as in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The law applicable here is succinctly stated in Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan ( 264 U.S. 504) where the court stated (p. 513): "A State may not, under the guise of protecting the public, arbitrarily interfere with private business or prohibit lawful occupations or impose unreasonable and unnecessary restricti

Unquestionably the Legislature is vested with wide discretion in the exercise of the police power, both in determining what the interests of the public require and what measures are reasonably necessary for the protection of such interests (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 180; 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 305). Although the police powers are broad there are certain well-defined limits which must be met. A law which limits constitutionally guaranteed rights must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable and must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained, namely, the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public ( People ex rel. Pinello v. Leadbitter, 194 Misc. 481, affd. 275 A.D. 864, affd. 301 N.Y. 695). It is undisputed that plaintiff's product is a healthful and wholesome article of food.

d as a valid exercise of the police power, it must be declared unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the sale of evaporated skimmed milk in less than ten-pound containers because its enforcement will deprive plaintiff of its property without due process of law (Ligett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U. S. 105). Unquestionably the Legislature is vested with wide discretion in the exercise of the police power, both in determining what the interests of the public require and what measures are reasonably necessary for the protection of such interests (16 C. J. S., Constitutional Law, § 180; 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 305). Although the police powers are broad there are certain well-defined limits which must be met. A law which limits constitutionally guaranteed rights must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable and must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained, namely, the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public (People ex rel. Pinello v. Leadbitter, 194 Misc. 481, affd. 275 App. Div. 864, affd. 301 N.Y. 695). It is undisputed that plaintiff's product is a healthful and wholesome article of food. It, therefore, follows that the Legislature may not prevent its sale on the ground that it is injurious to public health.