, 1859-07-14

fatt, and Should be indicted d suta.
Iii. 4. said, We do dol complain Of recreu
tons ut proper times and pliees. Suppos
there we're, for Instance, 10000 persons CON
| perfoFn what they do At Cottage Grove. wouts
not the respectable people Of lichigan avenu
regard it as = nuisance, and the Court On it
| own view would order it pulled down a th4
Court did in Halfs case. Suppose, the nuisance
in front Of His ,Honor's hot]se, would be rai
for the Common courcil 10 li.aie IN ordinance
AL must use their property with regard. II
the rights Of others aad under the law Of ID.
land. Counsel says itz their nationality aat
they are invited here; VIC say they are r3ot jn
invited; they nuay come but they must abidt
by our laws md not By tens Of tlousand com
nit nuisances in Cottage Grove: Let thru
come u long as ther will not interfere With the
tion 70 tue common Law regarding nuisances!
He might rs well hare said It il part IF tie ua.
] uonalsty Of the Eindoo to burn wi1owA. Snu.
! pose len thousand OF them euiEtate hero
could they carry out the srttcc in onr public
| streets.
! Tue following is IN abstract Of His Honor'z
| decision:
| 1 nj ieht under Ordinary c;rcumstances con-
| tent myself Fith aiinoun6idg tny decision, but
| fot The benefit Of the gentlemen engaged, and
the other cases involving the satne points, it is
| well that should gise the Courts views at
length. The case has been argued with great
! deal Of ability and i.asafng Oh both sides
hate examined the case aud hare not been able
! to find aug authorities to throw any new light
| on the question. All the principles Of Inv we're
fully ana ably argued, and the subsequent de-
| fence was presented with force. It belongs to
] claaa Of eases which necessarily efcites con-
sidet&bte public interest, and Of which outsiders
] will tnke town-meetipg view shis the
Court has no objection. TRUST shall not by
Il Hn S1T 70
| ice my convictions. As to the general asp ct
Of the case the there can be but one opinion,
for no one can excuse or ralliate the doinxs set
forth in the afhd2yit4.
10 one cah be ID igdoraut 6f huiman aature
us to SUPPOSE the garden WINS the original cause
Of all the debauehery. As citizens VIC may lee!
disgTaced by this inIgnity, and no one can full
to see that this is but The outbreak Of that which
has been for some time fostering in this CON-
munity. 1t ]. another question where the jutis-
diction to remedy this eSif reside4- it is not
only public and private nuisance, but it in
volves lhe whole criminal code from murder
down to petty larceny; it includes almost erer5
conceivable offence, aad it becomes tery seri-
GUS question Of jurisdiction.
This Court wilt rot willingly usdrp the turis-
diction Of the Police and Recorder Court; ad-
ali.tiag it ali true, this Court has no original
jurisdiction ;-the remedy lies in q criminal
court. It has been said thut the whole jurisdic-
ton Of the Court is bpt usurpation gu Com
mon Law. Courts, as in the days Of Lords
diction u well eS.sblished. The corner
stone of Jurisdiction is to give relief
where common law courts are unable to give re-
lief This applies to all original cases. It ap~
plies to all cases where the Court inter1eres il
common Inv jurisdiction, when the remedy is
incidental aud not original. Waictuiah's Eden
Is in itself mime Of law md exhausts the sub
iect Of injunctions, p. 80. The original juris~
.iictiou il BY Indictment the specia1 Jurisdiction
III Chaaccry, is only in cases where irreparab1e
dumuge to individuals Of great public mischief
viii ensue. 1t is settled that IN indisiduaI may
obtain relief for public nuisance, but the DAM
aye must be isrcparabie; when the public re-
cuyers it must hc great and per1nant mischief
one requiring the interpositiou Of the courts,
and when tue common law proceeding will not
give al adequate remedy, the injunction then is
specia'. In one Of tue notes, p. 25y, quotation
ttum Is Yes, the remedies at law are BY indict-
rate. The fouudasian of this Court Jurisdiction
is the probability Of irrcparab1e 1n,schief-io-
deed in the books there is no conflict on this
question. Two questions arise: Flrst--whether
there is IN adequate remedy ut Law, and second:
whether TIT ininrr is irreparable.
Is to the remedy a: law it IL not necessary to
read the stnt1ste to show Tint all these offences
are punishable BY indictment. The Legislature
anticipated Ill these oaenccs, but might not an-
ucipaic tbat they wou1d al be committed at
onee. 1t is 1nntter Of grave consideration
whether court Of equity should assume to
act, where the criminal code provides the reme-
dy. The Court to take such . Jurisdiction would
take on more wisdom thnn the Legislature,
and that it il the duty Of tbs Court to provide
for the punishment Of Offences. Here are 20
or 50 nen swearing 10 gross offences,
even up to murder, yet no application has been
made ly any Of these sensitive gentlemen to the
courts Of criminal law. 1t is = misfartune for
men to 60 on unmolested but that is not tue
case here. But this Court cannot travel ont Of
Its course BECAUSE men, from de)jcacy or fear
reluse ~ complain against men it would be
greater misfortune for y single man to sit as
Judge and jury. md it is i mockery Of justice
to say the remedy here asked is remedy at
all. II this doctrine can be maintaiued, tue
actual criu.lnal may escape, and others punished
fur them, fos no human ingenuity eau maintain
this bill except on impuiatiou these defend
auts are to be punished for the erils which the
others committed. The answer states, aud is not
coatradicted, that most Of the grievances were
committed ty others and not The defendants.
Tbs Court is bound to assume that the legal
remedies nre adequate-that is the presumption,
Nos what evidence has the Court OF tue made
quaey Of the remedies: It has 20 intimatiou Of
any effort IN that direction The legal presunp-
tion is, that ihe Legislature hare provided ade-
qaate remedy.
The other ground Of jurisdiction is irrcpara-
must be known 50 that the Court can decide the
4aestion- This only applies to private indi-
.siduuls, thouvh what might be irrepazahle
to the individual, might be 4 great pub
lie injury, which the Court would en-.
Join. The question Of irreparab1e injury
has never been presented in a n,nrul or reli-
sious aspect. The case Of the falling building
nm tffn dnI H.
the loss Of !ifs. They must be s4ch injuries us
cannot be compensated by damages: As to
Nr- West, the Till sets MP depreciation in
value. Tie answer denies it, Is Ibis court to
decide it, or is it proper question for jury,
OF is It 50 sppareos that The Court has no res-
seuable doubt: In relation 70 these questions
ofpruperty it is most difficult question; there
jzno uniformity Of opinion. - 70 the question
oF the Horse Rail~ay, some people say 1t bene-
tits the property, othcra SAY it wul ruin It. It
was expected, in running to Cottage Grove, the
x. H. would benefit it, but they bare run out
TerJ bad stock, and nov it is Deprecated. 1t
is not clear that the property Of Mr. West is
deprecated. It is only question Of dollars
tapd~ cents Of depreciation ID va1uc. How can
Re Court decide that! Because the scam Of
@4bcaety thought proper to concentrate there; is
this Court 10 assume that hat will continue A.
wa}s c
NtE tAAi dIAC& AAA N4%ukty ~ LIE EQII ~ AT0e
Railroad, thert were the best Of characters and
others Of \ different character. Is it to be sup
posed that the bad character would follow on
the train! We did not set policemen to get
certificates Of character for every one who cot
into The omnibus. There is another view as to
the injury and doings, for it appears The rcry
grove itself i an attraction. I think these sfe
facts which 60 to show these shinga did not
happen in consequence Of the lager beer rar-
dens, for il il stated that there were men with
booths and stands supplying the grounds nil,
excitement. Am I to kay that tie opening Of
the place and roads to the beer gardens 70 for
tion with the booths not necessary to thc 9ar-
dens-and the keepers Of these stands, ar.,
we're TIE last men WHOM, the garden keepers
wished to see!
the character Of al this. which comes up to II.
repazable injary, Ass ME. West it is merely
doubtful question n ct dollars aud cents, and It
risdjction-he caunot compel his neighbors to
conduct those grounds ia accordance with his
{ancifut notions. Who can tell NE Ibis lspd Of
Mr. Vests won't sell for more for summer
gardea ;lan be could eses get for il for subur-
bsn res'dencs:s~ As 70 the University, the
whole question is presented in moral aspect.
that is, for. the purposes Of its erection it j.
claimed this would be 4 great nuisance. The
Court to determiue that would haye TO assume
an intention Of continuance, II the proceed
ings are Illegal, there is i remedy at Law; it not
theJ must submit to il.
These men have = ticense-aud the Court il
bound 10 presnme that they. hare not violated
it. If any individual thinks, in CHICAGO. Yopih
can Be trained without temptation, tbsy viii
will find themselves disappointed, where re are
surrounded b these pitfalls The law Is merely
palltatise and designed 50 to be. II anything
I criminal law; gentlemen will have to resoSt 10
higher means. On the general Question ] FEEL