, 1891-08-18
TALBOT VS.. DAY.
An Important Case Argued In the
District Court.
A Large Crowd Present During the
Entire Session.
A Proposition Made to Prosecuting
Attorney Davidson.

luz Vase VI hhC lhlDOL dkdlubl WAY
Day was up for argument On demurrer in
the district court yesterday. The argu-
ment lasted from 10 a. D. until 6 in the
evening.
The petition filed by the plaintiff in the
case sets out that he is the owner and IN
possession of property, with improve.
ments thereon, within 400 feet of the
house owned by the defendant; that this
latter house is occupied by prostitutes,
and is resorted to for the purpose of
prostitution by men of low character;
aud that both occupants and visitors are
disorderly, vulgar, indecent and bolster
GUS; and that by reason of these facts
the plaintiff is deprived Of the comfortable
e~nioyments OF his home, which is and
will be greatly DEPRECATED in value by
reason of the near proximity of the
premises of the defendant to his house.
This case is similar to eight others started
some time ago. The petitions sll pray
that the defendants may be cpjoined from
using their premises in the manner de-
tailed in the pleadings.
Mr.. Davidson represented the defend
ant and A. G. Campbell the plaintiff.
Defendants counsel claimed that equity
would not take cognizauce of ~ofenses
against the law of the state, ana that
the proper remedy of the plaintiffs was to
proceed by indictment against the Of
tenders. That equity exercised its juris
diction in come cases OF a criminal ma
ture was admitted, but an examination OF
those cases would show plainly that they
we're cases in which the remedy by In
dictment would not be adequate; whereas,
by the laws of the state of Wyoming,
punishment by the criminal law would
place the offenders behind the bars, and
effectually prevent them from injuring
plaintiffs in the manner set forth in the
petition. The relief afforded by a court
OF equity was sought only to prevent
threatening mischief. This being the
case, imprisonment of the defendant and
of all persons found on the premises,
would prevent any threatened injury more
effectually than would a writ of iniunc-
ton. Should a writ be issued its only re-
suit would be to drive the defendant to
another place-so that, while the writ
might afford the plaintiff relief it would
interfere with similar rights OF other per-
sons; while the remedy by indictment
would protect the rights OF all persons.
Again. the ordinances of the city of
Cheyenne also afforded a perfect remedy.
BY those ordinances the town authorities
are authorized to break into all disorderly
houses and arrest all persons found on the
premises. This remedy would effectually
prevent the mischief.
The next proposition relied on by coun-
sci for defendant was that the petition
does not show that the plaintiff suffered
that peculiar injury requisite to enable
him to apply for the writ of injunction.
The allegations showed that the two
houses were distant from each other some
400 feet, but it was not shown
by the petition how the conduct of the de-
fendant or OF the occupants or visitors of
the house interfered in any manner with
the plaintiff. The manner in which the
plaintiff was specially and peculiarly in
iured was not set out, and hence the petl-
ton was faulty.
The strong point relied on by the de-
PENDANT, however, was that the petition
disclosed the fact that defendant had not
been dilligent in the assertion OF his rights.
1t showed that he had occupied his pres
ent home for some twenty years, while
the defendant has used her premises for
a long period of time. To entItle one to
relief by Injunction it is requisite that he
should be dilligent in the assertion of his
rights. Delay, while not amounting to
such acquiesence as deprives plaintiff of
his rights, may amount to such acquies-
ence as will deprive him Of equitable re-
lief. When the house OF defendant was
first used as a house of prostitution, plant
III should have come into court and asked
for relief; BY waiting for years he has so
far acquiesced that he cannot evoke the
aid of equity for his relief.
This proposition evidently surprised the
counsel for plaintiff. He stated, how
ever, that Mr.. Talbot had not come into
court before because he had for a long
time been endeavoring to get the authori-
ties to interfere, but that all his efforts
had been without avail. In reply to this
MIR. Davidson answered that this fact did
not appear from the petition.
Mr.. Campbell opened his argument by
stating that his petition was constructed
exactly similar to one drawn up by Mr..
Corlett. and for that reason, if for no
other, he considered it;good. He then
proceeded to attack the prosecuting at
torney for his stand in the case. The
gentleman commended hat the present re.
lief should be withheld because the de-
fendant, whom, he represented, could
be indicted; and yet, since January last,
the prosecuting attorney had 1t within his
power TO file an information against the
defendant and prosecute her for her vic