The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1892-05-12
THE SLACK CASES.

cases occupied consiuefaDle dV-
tention of our court. The law
suits grow out of injury done to
bottom lands from deposits of coal
slack and flooding with poisoned
water. The Tucker case was car
ried to the supreme court, and a
final verdict rendered giving Tuck
er full amount of damage and de-
fnlng the law in these cases to be,
that the coal companies are liable
for damages done to the property
of others.
The case is briefly this: A coal
company operates, as it has a right
to do, its coal mine. In the mining
of coal a quantity of slackis pro
duced. This slack is-net I com
mercial product, but is waste mat
ter. 1t is Obstructive to the fertili-
ty of soil it covers, as is the water
that filters from it. The company
deposits this slack upon its own
lands. The rains fall, wash it into
the streams. In times of flood, the
meadow lands are covered with
water drifting and depositing the
slack upon the flooded grounds:
The water of the stream is poison
ed. Stock will not drink 1t, fishes
can not live in it. The meadows
are made desolate: Suit is brought,
the company claim that they depos-
it the refuse on their own lands.
They must remove slack from the
mines or suspend coal mining. They
have a right to operate their mines,
ship the coal and retain the refuse
on their own lands, If the slack
washes off and Injuries Others, as
the loose plowed ground Of the hill
side, it is a Providential dispensa-
ton and the company can not help
it, and hence is not responsible.
The supreme court held otherwise.
Property can be used only so as to
not iniure others. The injury sus-
tanned must be atoned; the damage
caused must be paid for.
The usual proceeding IN a suit IN
court for damages, witnesses are
called to prove the extent OF dam
age done, the value of the land de
stroyed. In establishing this, the
case presents two sides; the COM
pany, proceeds to show the value OF
the land as productive property,
land its selling price in the market.
The plaintiff shows that 1t is.,not
the acreage alone, the former fertll
ity that constitute the elements Of
damage, but the loss from "th'
hole in the pane" to the entire win
dow, the destruction of the family
home. In the case tried last week
Nixon against the company, Mr.
O. w. Il. Wright, attorney fo
plaintiff, eloquently presented th'
loss to his client of the home of hi
life struggles, his trials and his tri
umphs in the forty years of life
beginning in the woods, raising hi
family, and in old age have tn
farm. endeared to HIM, possessed o
things not to be calculated by crop
or paid for by dollars, destroyed.
The case was an extraordinary on
but Nixon won, the jury givln:
him verdict of $4,000.
His farm is on Monday creek
about a mile above tie junction o
Sugar Run. The coal company
mines which caused the damage ar
on Sugar Run. To damage Nixol
required the fact to be establishe
that Sugar Run. when at food It'd
carrying the Obstructive slack, IN
stead of following down Monda
creek being the much larger stream
actually ''ran up hill," up Monda
creek, mile or more and deposite
slack on from eight to thirteen acre
of meadow land. A dozen witness
r es so testified. The explanation
that the slack from Sugar Ru
had accumulated at the junction Q
. the streams forming bar, a barrie
to the Sugar Run flood, and tina
the water of the Sugar Run flood
, being higher. than the Monda
creek, flowed cup" back over Nix
, on's meadow. A number of othe
cases for damage to lands lying o
e Monday, below the Junction are i
court. The company does nc
question their responsibility 1
these cases but will plead guilt,
= and contest for a low rate of dam
. age or compromise. 1t is hope
that compromise will be effected
I, 1t will maintain good feeling an
save annoyance and expenses to a
parties concerned,