New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-07-15
IN IMPORTANT CONNECTICUT CASE.

An interesting point of law is being raised in
Connecticut by woman who is suing a neghbor
for damages alleged to have resulted from said
neighbor placing fy-screens in his windows there
by causing O greater number of flies TO enter
come into, invade, and take up their residence in
said plaintiffs house, to the great and painful
injury Of her peace Of mind. The claim set up
is that under the common law and certain special
statutes made and provided every Connecti-
cut family is bound to provide for its quota of
flies and that the said defendant by the placing,
or the causing to be placed, of the said screens,
bars, wirecoth network, fy-excluders insect-dis.
couragers, or by whatsoever other name, title or
appellation they may be known thereby fails to
provide for the flies driving them elsewhere and
raising the pro-rata of the community and es-
pecially of the defendant, owing or arising from,
the proximity, nearness, of the said or before.
mentioned, plaintiffs house to the defendants;
and the said plaintiff prays that an injunction
issue directing the said defendant 10 remove from
his windows and doors all distinctions to the
free ingress and egress of flies of all sizes what
soever at all hours of the day and night; and
il is further prayed that damages be awarded
the said plaintiff in the sum of 81 900, etc.
We quote from the plaintiffs petition as above,
feeling certain that it is a case in which people
will be interested, especially at this time of the
year. Among the members of the legal profession
especially il will doubtless attract much attention
and we trust that the necessarily condensed and
hasty summary Of the points which we present
will be sufficient to give them an idea of the
case. 1t is, we think, something new in
iursprudence-there is no precedent to be cited
at tho trial, and whatever the decision may be, it
will Immediately become a modern instance which
will gradually fade into wise saw.
The plan of defence of the party sued has not
yet been outlined. II is stated that under the
wise and equitable Connecticut law he cannot
deny that it Is his duty to provide for his share
Of the village dIeS but it is limited that he will
attempt TO throw the burden of proof on the
plaintiff by setting up the plea that no members
of his apportionment Of flies can be found in the
plaintiffs house. they having, when they dis
covered that they were barred out from their
rightful place, adjourned in body to a German
beer garden about two miles distant. This line
Of defence and the unavoidable rebuttal WILL OF
course, render necessary the Identification of the
dies in open court, both those found in the
plaintiffs house as well as those at the beer
garden. Should the proprietor of the beer
garden refuse to give up his dics or should he
secure their release by writ of habeas corpus
something of that Sort it will greatly cOmplicate
matters, and may bring on long and bitter litga-
ton The apprehension of the flies by the
sheriff will, it is suspected, require some sklful
work on the part of that officer, and it is said
that he has already secured detectives to assist,
none of those employed ON the Cronin murder,
however, being engaged.
The outcome of the case will be awaited with
interest. The sympatheS Of the people of Con-
necticut are reported being largely with the
plaintiff, and it is said that unlimited capital has
been placed at her disposal TO fight the matter to
the bitter end. The legality of ay-screens has
long been questioned by many people in that
State, and now that chance TO test it has
arisen they are determined that the popular side
shall not lack for funds or encouragement 1t
is whispered that, if the plaintiff is successful
combined attack will be made on the people who
place tiy-ncts on their houses and on those mis-
guided women, who, attaching quantity of strips
of paper TO long stick, deliberately shoo' their
dies out of their houses on to a longsutfering and
already dy-suppled public.