after stating the case: Chapter 73, subchapter 11, of the Revisal, regulates building in incorporated cities and towns having a population of more than one thousand, and it is operative in the city of New Bern, under the findings in the special verdict.
Under the provisions of section 2986 of that chapter the chief of the fire department, who is the inspector, is authorized to issue a permit to the owner of property to build, and we think this includes the power to authorize repairs to be made. If, however, this power was in doubt, it seems to be made clear by the latter part of section 3010, which reads as follows:
“No building now or hereafter built shall be altered until it has been examined and approved by the inspector as being in a good and safe condition to be altered as proposed, and the alterations so made shall conform to the provisions of the law.”
We do not think section 3, chapter 61, Private Laws of 1907, amending the charter of New Bern, is in conflict with this view. It provides that the city may pass ordinances regulating the condemnation of buildings, their repair, and the erection of future buildings. This power was reserved under section 3008 of chapter 73, subchapter 11. It does not, in terms or by implication, take from the inspector the power to grant permits to repair, and is not inconsistent with the general law. The purpose of both is to protect the property of the citizen, and the city of New Bern has the power to adopt reasonable *632regulations, not only to enforce tbe provisions of tbe Revisal, but in addition thereto. Tbe inspector is chief of tbe fire department of New Bern, selected by its authorities and acquainted with its needs. It cannot be a bad public policy to entrust him with tbe power to grant permits to build or repair, guided and controlled as be will be by tbe law from which be derives bis authority and by tbe valid ordinances of tbe city.
Tbe defendant acted in accordance with tbe laws of tbe State, and the city of New Bern cannot by ordinance make an act illegal which is legal under our statutes. If there was no conflict between tbe ordinance and tbe statute, it is not certain that tbe ordinance does not come within the condemnation of S. v. Tenant, 110 N. C., 609.
The judgment is
Affirmed.