The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1874-02-26

tried. Powell VS.. State, Is Ohio,
579). A Judge at chambers may
have star chamber performances un-
less controlled.
Judge Harrison then took up the
different objections heretofore pre-
sented by counsel for defense in an
swer to petition.
The affidavit, which was part of the
petition, was not proper one. 1t
could hot be used against its author
if brought up against him in trial
for perjury.
The petition does not show a cause
for action in favor of johnson and
Dunn.
Where one party has cause of &C
ton and the other none, it is mis-
ioinder. What cause was there for
action in Johnson's case? Suppose
one hundred people were praying for
the same relief, and the Chancellor
finds that only one of them is enti-
tied to it, how can he grant it to all?
Let one ask, and an injunction can
be granted.
1t is the merest humbug and pre-
tense to come here and swear that
a little shanty of boards and canvas,
put up in few moments, and en-
joined asysoen as up, had deprecia-
ting effect Upon Johnson's reversion-
ary interest.
Photographic galleries, 10 by Is
feet in size, about the dimensions of
this tabernacle, are planted in front
of houses in our towns, and stay all
winter without affecting anybody's
reversionary interest in freeholds ad-
joining. Tt was not the shanty that
hurt in this case, it was the praying
and singing that was the matter.
Does Dunn make out a case for
temporary injunction7 The trespass-
es ceased upon notice given by hand
bills, as stated in the plaintiff peti-
ton. The ladies withdrew from his
room and sidewalk and placed them
selves upon the street. Dunn does
not claim that they threatened to
trespass again. But, in case they
had not ceased, his proper remedy
was in suit for damages. Ithas been
well and repeatedly decided that mere
trespass does not entitle one to an
injunction. An injunction can not
be granted for past offenses. The
Ohio code says that an injunction is
a command to refrain from doing an
act. It can be allowed against i'm
pending trespasses, but not against
those past.
What is a nuisance? A person ap-
plying for a restraining order against
a private nuisance must show his
right at law before it can be granted.
To warrant the issue of an in
junction, the same irreparable injury
must be shown as in trespass, before
he can have any other remedy than
that atlaw. Injunctionsare not to be
granted except when injury is irrep-
arabic and there is no remedy at law.
When statutory remedy exists, re-
course shall not be had to equity, as
that would place. thelaw below equity.
The statute in Ohio indicates what
a nuisance is, and provides remedy
i. e., an abatement-and the per
son injured may recover damages.
In this State positive remedy exists
in statute, and equity should not in
terfere. Had the Legislature provided
that in addition to this sremedy right
to injunction should exist, then this
action was proper; but the Legislature
has not so provided.
When matter complained of is
not in itself a nuisance, but by rea-
son of it's circumstances becomes so,
the circumstances must be examined
by jury, as to the facts, before an
injunction can be granted. A court
of equity will not interfere when le-
gal rights exist, and such rights are a
proper subject of inquiry and decis-
ion before jury. The court will re-
quire that irreparable damage be
shown as liable to ensue, before it
will interfere.
What constitutes q great and If
injury? 1t is grievous
one, and one not to be compensated
by damages at law. If there be such
reasonable means of approximating
to the actual damages sustained as to
show, on the whole, that the quantity
of damages is not irreparable, then
there is remedy at law. Dunn has
an adequate remedy under the stat
ute, and also one at common law.
The court must investigate before
granting even temporary injunction,
and in this case none of the defend
ants had an opportunity to show
why they should not be enjoined.
The Judge, who thus granted an
without hearing, comes
into court as counsel for the plaintiff,
and urges that the injunction be
made perpetual. Had this shanty
remained standing until next term of
court, would the plaintiff have sus-
tanned such grievous damages that a
jury could not have approximated
the injury SO as to have compensated
plaintiff? This question of nuisance
is one peculiarly adapted to decision
bv q iurv