Morning journal and courier., 1882-09-09
the price of oil to fall and loss to dealers in oil of probably $25, 100000 since last Jan uary.

The Mobile (Alabama) Register says: We
 do not deny that personal renoounters are more frequent in some parts of the South than there is any excuse for, but we do deny that bloody rsncounters are the rule in t1 is section. They are the exception, not the rule. peaceable man can live psaceably in the South as well as elsewhere, and the strong arm of the law will protect him in southern as well as in other communities. AS to the failure to punish men by law who have en- gagged in such rencounters, we admit that public sentiment is 10th to infict severe pen alties where there has been fair fight This is not as it should be, we grant, but this re- luctanos does not arise in general from any sense that violence is right in personal diff cultiss, but from indisposition to bring dis
 grace and punishment upon friend and
 neighbor, whose crime has not been of
 malice aforsthought, but committed in hot
 blood.
 An interesting case involving the question, When is bell ringing nuisance? :? has just been decided by the Supreme court of Massa- chusstts. The suit was bill in equity pray
 ing for an injunction to restrain the defend
 ants from ringing bell upon their woollen
 mill in Plymouth. The case came to the full court by appeal by the defendants from
 decree entered by single justice, snjolning
 them from ringing the bell earlier than half
 past six o'clock in the morning. The plain tiffs for many years have owned and occupied
 dwelling houses situated one about 1000 feet and tho other about 300 feet from tho 1~R~
 commenced to run their mill, which had been
 previously occupied by other parties, in De-
 cember, 1879 and about January l, 1880,
 placed the bell upon the mill and caused 1t
 to be rung every working day at five and
 twice between six and one-half o'clock in the
 morning and at other times during the day.
 except that the five o'clock bell was discon- tinued during the summer. The plaintiffs alleged that the bell as rung was a private hui sance to them and injured their property and disturbed the quiet and comfort of their homes; that it was not necessary for any pur- pose of trade manufacture that it was unnscesaarily large and rung at unreasonable hours and unrsasonably long. The defend ants in their answer denied that the bell was 6 nuisance to the plaintiffs, and alleged that it was used by the defendants to summon the operatives in their mill to work; that it WAS necessary and customary to adopt some method to summon operatives in such 8 manufactory to their work that the bell was Of suitable size, rung at suitable hours, and in 8 proper manner for that purpose. Two questions were presented for the considera- tion of the court: first, whether the plain vo1 %hokkr Al~o l. nuisance to them and, second, whether it was such a nuisance that the court would in terfsre to restrain it by injunction. The
 court has decided SE the evidence seems
 fully to sustain the finding of the judge who
 heard the case; that the ringing of the bell
 was nuisance to the plaintiffs, and further that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunc- ton.