The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1881-12-11

.,,ioations which a town incurs
UI q special duty is imposed On
y WILT Eth : ifs consent expressed or I'M
~ nI;ed or a special authority Is con u
fsrred on it at its request. Ii t tbo
ietter case a town is suoJect W 'n of
.ome liabilities for the neglecC VI
s sSlre sneciaI duties to when PIT
n Lafs0 CORPORATIONS would be, II Inc
vS.0 On dnfies were imposed, OF the
same o uII1oI conferred on them,
incIuding their liability os so for t tbo
Wyrongfui neglect, as well as $50 Ior I Inc
wrongful act Of their Oln'0i' "lu
Sg Tf his doctrine is correct, and 10
so ~ sH to he supported by abundant
authority then ,aITn0usgiv ino - t fm
statute expressly dota .vdng In. me
sctien against the deIe Hl city
for the recovery Of damages caused
nv nv the he neglect of a corporate munich
~ VIC d, tVe vet the liability Of q city,
$3.50 Sn LuCy, With its corporate powers,
i inroIUin the right Of raising reve-
IAsS Nv 4tS9xation, and special assess
nuT ~ and and the expenditure of the
L n11nTT for general, and alse for
I0oom and local purposes is greater
s sPon that Of counties or towns
@ .uan are deemed to be auxillisries
~ The state merely, and when cSr-
CITATIONS - are Of the very lowest
proSe and invested with the small
s.St amount of power. Barnes Us.
district of Columbia, United States,
20. Asken US. Hall County, %
Am. Rspt $50.
In Barnes Us. District of Colum-
bio il is said, at is denied that 3
municipal corporation (ss distin-
gnigbed from corporation organ
Pad for private GAIN is liable fer
the injury to an individual arising
fTsm negligence in the construction
ofa work authorized by it. Some
esses hold that the adoption of a
DIan of such a work is q judicial
sct and if injury arises from the
mere execution of that plan no
liability exists; Child rS. Boston,
Allen Al; Thayer CS. Boston, 10 Pick
III Other cases hold that for its
negligent execution Of plan good
in itself. OF for mere negligence IN
the care of its streets, or other
works, a municipal corporation can
not be charged. City Of Detroit oS.
Blackleg, q Mich. "a, is oAthe latter
class, where it was held that the
city was not liable for an injury
arising from its neglect to keep its
sidewalks in repair. The authorities
establishing the contrary doc
trine. that a city is responsible for
its mere negligence aIe so numerous
and so well considered, that the law
must be deemed to be settled IN &C
cordance with them" The motion
for a non-suit was based on the fol-
lowing grounds: "The plaintiff has
act shown by any evidence pre-
duced, that the city, defendant, had
any possession or control OF the
water at the time of the alleged in
jury, nor any testimony to show
that the defendant is in any way
culpable or liable for his alleged
loss" The evidence produced by
the plaintiff tended to show that
the water which caused the damage
to the plaintiffs tobacco came from
a channel or ditch in one Of the
public streets of the city, and that
while in such ditch it was under the
selc control of the defendant; that
the water in passing frem the ditch
n the street, ran through gate put
in the side Of the ditch by the city,
which was galso under its control;
that after it left the public ditch in
the street it was used to irrigate the
land adjacent ito and upon all of
one side of it as is shown by the fol-
lowing diagram:
North