The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-04-15
l. AW REPO r 7. .
COMMON PLEAS.


city u chonns SRd auSRes % son ae
sSS%td M to yqSs' 5 5 to % I az
the east side Of Western row. above Front street. On
yao si % BAD BEEN 4" send
the only title the city got was by adverse use. She
eriy and that she had right improve L and assess
taxes on the property owners. Taken under advise
Judge sPooner for plaintiff Judge HoadlOy for
Hughes Hayes and Disney for the City.
%HaSy sSyHss amp nS
was the real plantiff-haying hmselflent the money
and received the payment. Witnesses were examined
who lived In the house Of Emma Pross deposed that
they saw the amounts repaid to him. Verdict for de-
sislio for plaintiff; p. Mceroorty and James Boyle
CRIMINAL s1pE.-w. Written was held before Judge
Maon IN an Indictment charging the larceny Of $50
Gaines for the State; Matson for defense.
SUPERIOR COURT.
REPAIR OF STREETs-0. b. Farrelly & Co. vs. the
City of Cincinnati. The plaintiffs allege that they
thinning nPS % to G Sorye 9S Ii WSy
vine street and BY neglect & OF the city to keep In
tween Mulberry street and the. north line Of the
city, on VIno,street Hill, (which in January 1856,
ing in and over the gutters their omnibusos became
recked and broken, and their horses strained, Grip
alleged that at various times they were compelled
to abandon part Of their usual route and thus lose
Q portion Of the goodwill and custom the line.
1t also stated that notice Of the condition Of the
street was given to the city. Damages in the sum of
5000 were claimed.
10 this petition demurrer was fled claiming that
the facts set forth did not constitute Of action
Judge Gholson delivered q somewhat heightened
opinion in the case. He held that Il not enough
In such case that an individual suffers in common
with the rest of the communty-his damage must be
over and beyond this and only in respect of such
special and peculiar damages can he maintain an
action. When common highway is suffered to
become in foundrous condition, for want of proper
they not walk or ride In the track before
but for that cause alone, action will lie. The
bus of one man may require him to over the
highway. daily OF another only occasionally; yet II
has never been supposed that this difference in the
degree OF the injury was sufficient to make IL special
and peculiar. There were only two classes of cases
in which the injuries have been deemed to be special
and pecuiar-One proceeding from the local position
| of the plaintiff as where he had place of business
the other class arises from the particular nature
the injury where traveller, using due and proper
caution, suffers from obstruction defect negli
| gently placed or permitted therein.
The injury of which plaintiffs complain the found
alton of their action does not fall within either o
these classes; they may have suffered more severely
than the rest of the public but not in different way
After the high way became in the ruinous condition
described, Il could no longer be prudently and safe
in its gave to the plaintiffs ground Of action
| they surely did not create claim for damages b.
continuing to travel with their vehicles and horses
Under these views the demurrer sustained.
King and Thompson, for plaintiff; Hayes and Dis
| ney, for the city.