Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1871-01-26
HUMOROUS PHASES orruELAw.

The lsw is careful of the eycs, ears.
and noses Of efmankini. aud will nor ia>si-
~ offensive sights sounds. or smells. but
will punish as crimes offences against
those necessary aud sensitive organs, prs
vided such Offences iavolve general Au,i
public disturbance. But the offence asus1
DO rank. aud smell TO heaven, IN sustain
an Indictment. Otherwise, nothing m1rs
than an action fur damages viii r. -
Quite an extraordinary catalogue might ~,
made Of the complaints which nervoas pea.
pie have made against their nsighbors---
TO say nothing Of serious attacks eps,,s
health BY offensive trades and occnpqti,
which have come before the ronsts. Ccn-
cert saloons and locomotives. bowling al.
leys and butting rams, billiard saloons
and biting dogs. boiler shops and bathin-
In exposed situations. swearing and slaurh
ter houses, Instructions to travel in put
lie streets b.. y.means of too attractive shop
windows, or the vending of diS,illcr,
slops: and score of other things. have
constituted the cause of action under .hi,
head.
IL NAV be observed that cursiug ani
swearing. 10 moderate and reasonable
degree, is not nuisance. To constitute
such profanc cursing and swearing n
would be indictable aS nuisance. the act.
must be so repeated and 50 public ~ To-
become an annoyance and Inconvenience
to the community. The law is not 81
harsh as TO deem it nuisance publicly to
curse aud swear for the space oftwo hour.
State of North Carolina VS.. Jones, 9 lrcd.
80.
But the law. although indulgeni. can
not stan' every thing. and 50 the hecpiug
in public house of Ia certain common.
ill-goycrncd. and disorierly room" AMI
procuring and suffering. for lncre. disnr-
derly persons to meet and remain therein
by night and by day. drinking. tippIing.
cursing, swearing. quarrcliug, making
great noises, rolling bowls in and at q
game commonly called ten. pins" &c. J..
a public nuisance. Bloomhutf VS. State
of North Carolina, 3 Blaclf, 205.
Rope dancing was nuisance at COM
mon law. This was decided hv l.og,!
Hale in Jacob Halls case Il Mod. -
Jacob was Il rope dancer of the time {
Charles l. and, on account of hi. hear-
ty and activity. had been taken into favor
by the Countess Of Ca>tlemape. one ..
Charless mistresscs. Hall being alou'
TO erect stage at Charing cross to rxhih-
il his performance, the k,ng's Bcu,.l
perhaps inspired By the kings excnsabie
jealousy OF Jacob, held Jacob t. be = uui-
sanee in respect to his rope dan,u. -
That he claimed to have the kings W.T..
rant for it made no difference ifChart,.
had proposed to make Jacob dance 3 ,ha
end of 4 rope perhaps the court would not
have interfered. 1t is not a little anus
ing that 50 acute man rs Judge Cov,n
should have attributed the conduct of H..
court on this occasion TO the national re
pect for law and order
Rex vs.. Medley t6 Carr and Paw.
292. Is case tit to make lzaak Waitr,.
Ito 60 off the hooks" The indictn. ...
alleged THAT from time whereof the .,.
ory. of man ruuneth not to the cont
there had been, and sill uus ceria.
cjea river called the Thames" which wa,
full of water tit TO drink, and OF f.h e,
eat, the taking of which fish furnished Cd.
support Of large class Of men ; tha,
defendant had conveyed into said ri
the refuse of gas. whereby the water ,.,.
rendered unfit tor drinking. and the Ia
were destroyed, and the fishermen we
damaged in their said calling II v..
proved that the smell Of gas Killed e..
sinelts in the stream. But the court WI
was probably not fond Of fishing. rema-l
ed IF the dimiuutiou of fish is 10 T.
considered the criterion. than every r...
prietor of a coppcr-bot,oincd vessel, eve
~ maker Of a sewer. every proprietor Of.
steamboat must be found guilty. rs the
contribute to such diminution. and il L.
not question of degree. As tie pco-
pie Of England are resolved 70 have gl-
lights. and steamboats,, and coppcr-hot-
toned vessels. they must be content also
to bear the Inconvenience which viii oc-
casionally result from the Use Of them
Il Is gratifying to learn that v.cr-pn
sick Of an infectious or contagious disease.
in his own house. or in suitable apart
ments at public hotel or boarding house.
is not 4 nuisance. Boom vs.. Utica =
Barb 104,) holds this, and Illustrates
the principle. The plaintiff was les
see Of premises f.um the defendants.
at annual rent of 210 Without his
consent, some alderman. who, he claimed,
acted under authority of the defendants,
put into an old bouse on the premises n
family sick with the smallpox, removing
them from hotel. under the sanction of
the city charter, which authofiLei the aba
ting and removing of nni,aurc- The
plaintiff uas prevented from ,h" enjoy
mcut of the lot for the purpose Of pastur-
age aud cultivation, because il was decrn-
cd dangerous TO approach the house un-
der the circumstance. Perhaps he fear
el that his cows would take the disease.
A referee gave him S15 damages. The
report WAS set aside on the grounds that
the Common Council had no power Ip al
'horize the act complained Of. and never
in fact. did aathorire IT, But the Coart
intima,es that the city's agents did wrong
in taking the family froia the hotel. sna
in this connection hold that being sick ot
smallpox st hotel does not render ono :.
nuisance subject 90 removal Gcn.r-
ally this doctrine will be approved.