Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-06-29
Mlistellamepns &eaaiua,

Mr.. II. A. Haigh, Ill. D., of Detroit, Mich,
gives a resume of the laws on the above sub
iect, in the american 1griculturist for June,
from which we extract the following:
1t is a general doctrine of law in this coun-
try that the land in the highway belongs to
the owners of land lying along each side.
With few exceptions the American farm
extends to the middle of the road, and the
public has only the right to pass and repass
there in an orderly manner, and the right to
keep the way in repair. Every other use of
the highway which does not interfere with
this public right, belongs to the farmer owning
the adjacent land. He owns the soil, grass,
trees, stones, and gravel, and everything else
upon the surface or under it, and may use
them all in any way that does not affect the
public right of passage; and the law will pro-
tect his ownership in them just as much as
though they were inside his fence. No other
person has any more right to pasture his
stock there than in inclosed lands nor can
he hitch his horse to a tree there without
being liable for the tresSpass, especially if the
horse should gnaw the tree or do other dam
age he can, in fact, only pass orderly along.
AS to road fences, the laws do not, with the
possible exception of those of New York above
noted, impose any obligation and the farmer
NAV. if lie chooses, remove such fences, with
out impairing his right of action against the
owners of any domestic animals that enter
and do damage by that means.
If person let's his cattle 90 in the highway,
he is liable for the trespass they commit by
simply being there unlawfully ; for the grass
they consume, for the injury they occasion to
the sod or by barking the trees, and for any
other damages they may do. If, while there,
fully using the way, he would be liable fol
the injury. a man once turned his horse into
a public place where children were playing.
one of whom began switching the horse, which
turned and kicked and killed the child. He
was convicted of manslaughter.
Notwithstanding the fact that the farmer owns
the land of the road, he cannot use it himself
for any purpose which at all interferes with
the public rights there. He cannot put his
wood piles, wagons, or pig pens; and II ne
does, and the traveller runs into them in the
night and is injured, he would not only be
liable for the private damages sustained
I.insley VS.. Bushnell, 15 Conn. 225) but he
may be indicted for obstructing public way
A VERY ODD INCIDENT.-TheS South bound
freight train on the North Carolina Railroad
ran over little negro child about four years
old between the Yadkin river bridge and Sal
isbury on Saturday. The engineer saw that
it would be impossible to stop the train before
it reached the spot where the child was sitting,
and swinging himself out of the window, start
ed to crawl along the engine to it's 'front.' with
the intention of picking up the child before
the cow catcher struck it. He would proba
bly, have succeeded in this perilous under.
taking, but lunge Of the engine caused him
to lose lis balance, and he was percipitated
down an embankment. He had hardly re-
gained his feet before piercing scream was
heard and he knew that the child had been
run down. The engine stopped within its
length after striking the child, and then the
horrible task of pulling the mangled body out
- from under the wheels began. The body had
been cut in two as cleanly as if done with
a knife-the head part falling to one side
and the legs to the other. A shudder raj
through the engineer when lie picked up the
head and body of the child, and the sensa
tions he experienced when it broke into 8
cry, were indescribable. He hastily laid it
upon the ground, when it uttered the most
agonizng screams for full two minutes before
it gave gasp and died. 1t was strange ex
perience to hear a dismembered body crying
and was well calculated to make the witnesses
shudder The body of the child was turned
over to it's mother, who lived in cabin neal
by.-Gharlotte Observer.
OLD-TIME CHURCI-SLEEPING.-It is more
than two hundred years ago that Rev. DIR. Sam
uel Whiting was minister in Lynn, Mass Al
that time one Obadiah Turner kept journa
and wrote therein as follows: "Allen Bridges
hath been chose to wake upye sleepers in meet
ing, and being much proud of his place must
need have fox tail fixed to We end of a long
staff wherewth he may brush the faces o.
them who will have maps in time of sermon
likewise a sharp thorn, wherewith he may
prick such as be most sound. On ye last Lore
his day, as he trotted about We meeting house
he did spy Mr.. Tomlns sleeping with very
much comfort, his head kept steady by being
in We corner and his hand grasping ye rail
And soc spying, Allen did quicklie thrust his
staff behind Dame Bolland and gave him q
grievous prick upon ye hand; whereupon Mr.
Tomlns did spring up much above ye floor
and with great force strike his hand against ye
wall and ALSO to we surprise OF all, prOphanllt
exclaim in loud voice, 'Cuss ye woodchuck /
lie dreaming, as it seemed, that woodchuck
had bit his hand. On coming to know where
he was, and We great scandal he had committed
he seemed much abashed, but did not speke
and think he did not againe 60 to sleep III
meeting. Ye women may sometimes sleep and
none know it by reason Of their enormous bon
nets. Mr.. Whiting doth pleasantlie say that
from ye pulpit hedoth seem to be preaching to
stacks of straw, with men jotting here and
there among Them.
IMPORTANT INSURANCE DECIsIoN.-be.
tween the years 1850 and 1853, George Davis
insured his life several times in the New York
Life Insurance Company. The amount OF the
policies was $4,000, which sum, it was provi-
ded. should 60 to Mrs. Mary Davis, George
Davis wife, or, in the event of her DEATH to
her children. Mrs. Davis died in 1868. Six
years later George Davis gave up the policies
to the insurance company in consideration OF
a certain sum of money. He gave receipt
for this money, us the guardian OF his children,
all but one Of whom had reached majority be-
fore the surrender took place. After his death
in 1879, his children learned of the former ex-
istence of the policies upon his life, and of the
manner if which they were disposed of. They
then demanded the payment of the insurances,
offering in advance to pay the premiums that
accrued after the policies were surrendered.
AS the insurance company refused to pay, a
suit was begun on the ground that the surren-
der of the policies was void. Judge Van Worst
decided, in the Supreme Court, special term,
recently, that the interest in the policies hav-
ing been in his children, George Davis had no
right to surrender them without their consent,
and that the transaction between him and the
insurance company was, therefore, void.-Nec
York Iimes