The record-union., 1894-01-08
AN INTERESTING DECISION.

AN O1S1S1ONs
The County Commissioners of an In
diana county granted license to open
saloon on residence street. One of the
property-owners on that street near by
brought an action to have the saloon
damages due to injury to the property, it
being shown that it's rental and salable
values declined because of the location of
the saloon on that street. The Supreme
Court has decided that the claim is good.
the saloon-keeper responsible in dam
ages, and that the place must be abated
as nuisance.
In this case there was no provision that
petition of majority of the property
owners or residents should be presented
as a condition precedent to the issuance
of the license. 1t is to be regretted that
this is the fact, since the decision would
then be more important and far-reaching.
AS it stands, the court holds that what
ever tends to injure the property of
citizen, that is not for the general public
good, not demanded by the public justice,
or by the need of the Government, is in
fraud of private right, and is nuisance,
and must be abated.
Some years ago this was announced by
a San Francisco court in case where
chemical works were established in the
midst of a residence section, and again
where tannery was built near to the
residences of citizens. The principle is
as old as the hills. and all that is new in
the Indiana case is the holding that the
license granted by the County Commits
sioners is no protection to the defendant.
since the Commissioners have no power
to license anyone to do that which is
trespass upon the rights of others. Who
ever has a single idea of human rights
and of the principles Of justice, must con-
fess the soundness of this expression,
and anyone who takes different view
testifies to his selfishness and incapacity
to understand the fundamental laws un-
lying the right OF the citizen to enjoy life,
liberty and property in peace and with
out infringement.
But had tie Indiana case been one in
which the establishment of the saloon
was based on the consent of majority
of the property-owners or residents in the
block, then the ruling would have been
of the very highest value. We incline to
the belief that not even the petition of
majority of property-owners and resi-
dents asking for the establishment of that
other, and that is not for the general
good or the need of the Government,
local, State or National, will sustain the
grant OF q license when the thing per-
mitted is assailed as nuisance. If the
citizen has the right to enjoy his property
to the full, then all of his neighbors con-
senting to the injury to him will no more
deprive him of his right than if but one
consents or the County Commissioners
alone give the necessary license to estab-
lsh a nuisance.
We think it altogether likely that had
the case come before the Indiana court i'll
that form the decision would have been
lust the same. OF course all this is predi-
Gated upon the fact being established that
the saloon, under such circumstances,
amounts to 8 nuisance; that is, that 1t
tends to reduce the earning and sale value
of property within its neighborhood.
Take it in any residence section OF any
city of California, and let a saloon be es-
tablished in its midst, and it will be very
easily proven that residence in that Sec
ton has become less desirable and rental
value therefore reduced. If the principles
here enunciated are sound, it follows that
the action of Board of Trustees or
County Supervisors, or OF majority OF
the property-owners or residents-and
we might say and residents-cannot sus-
tain the defense, if a single one of the
owners or residents in the sblock can
prove that the establishment is to his in
Jury, an infringement of his right and IS
q nuisance. This view of the case would
seem to emphasize the necessity for ordl-
nances requiring consent of majority OF
ths residents of a block, to be amended so