Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-10-18
CHINA SLOUGH NUISANCE CASES.
Judge Armstrong Decides Landlords Eoi
Liable for Pilthy Condition of Prem

JuQR6 AImSIlOnG D6clQeS LanQlOrOS hOI
Liable for FILTHY Condition of Prem.
ises.
Yesterday, in Department One of the Su.
perior Court, the case of ]. D. Tate. charged
with maintaining nuisance on the border Of
China slough, which was on appeal from the
verdict of the jury and Judgment in the Po.
lice Court came up for argument before
Judge Armstrong, and was considered test
case.
Henry Edgerton, on behalf of the appel
liant, presented several grounds upon which
he claimed a reversal, but the presiding
Judge directed counsel to confne his argu-
ment solely to the question of the landlords
liability.
Mr.. Edgerton argued that J. D. Tate. hav-
ing leased the property to two Cinnamon for
term Of one year. with privilege of five
years, which was made eighteen months ago,
and that the property being in good condi-
| tion at that time, and no nuisance thereupon,
that the defendant Tate could not be subject
to indictment.
Judge Armstrong at this point said to coun-
sci that he felt inclined to agree with that
proposition, and could not see how the land
/ lord could be held, and said he would hear
from City Attorney Anderson upon the
point.
MIR. Anderson urged that the facts in this
case disclosed that Tate was the owner of the
property, and that he knew in what manner
the property was being used, and knew that
a nuisance was being maintained there that
he exercised control over the property, and
promised to abate the nuisance before the
arrest; that the very nature of the prop
erty and the class of tenants, and the eitua-
tion upon the margin of the slough, was sutfi-
cisnt TO notify him that it would result in a
public nuisance therefore he could be indict-
ed either alone or jointly with the tenants.
He further argued earnestly that the owner
| of property upon which nuisance is main
tanned is liable, if he knows or has reason to
know, how the premises are or were to be
used; that if the landlord knows his prop
! erty is used for an unlawful purpose he is liza
| BILE. Any person contributing to the nuisance
is liable, either jointly or alone, and the land
| lord is responsible for any use of his prem
ises which, by an improper use, may become
q nuisance, although it in fact becomes a
nuisance through the fault of the tenant. As
an illustration, it was stated that if person
lets building and afterwards the lessee used
! il for gambling house, or house of ill-fame,
and the knowledge was brought 20 the owner,
that he was liable to indictment.
There was considerable sharp discussion
between the City Attorney and the Court
during the argument, the Court appearing
opposed to his position, and put number of
! legal questions to couDsel-such as Could
the lease be Cancelled by the Landlord under
these circumstances If not, then certainly
| he could not be held liable"
These questions were replied to by the City
Attorney, who, with great deal of warmth,
took issue with the Court and directed his
attention to the Importance of this case to
the public, That such was the character of
| this class of cases, unless the landlord could
be held it would be almost impossible to abats
these nuisances that these houses were
swarming with Celestial vermin, and iG would
be out of all question to procure testimony
Sufficient to identify the real perpetrators Of
these sickening nuisances, which are such a
menace to the safety of the community.
| the Court said it could not consider that
matter. The only thing for him to pass upon
was the liability of the landlord in this case,
and that he could not agree with the counsel
upon the law of the case, and would hold that
| the landlord is not subject to indictment un-
der these circumstances.
| Mr. Anderson asked the Court to give o
written opinion for future guidance, but the
Court said his time vas too much occupied.
The judgment of the Police Court was re-
versed. and the defendant discharged.
This decision will compel all future prose-
cutions to be against the persons occupying
infected premises, and will doubtless give
the prosecution considerable trouble in pro-
curing the necessary testimony to obtain con-
victions.