Sierra County advocate., 1895-05-10

Sihb W SAlhNlOhN ~ NJ f'-H-1 "N'
not assunle the risk Of the edition
al danger caused 10y The removal of
the buikhead without his know
ledge. (4.) Where a miner
worked in shaft upon a high col
umn Of dirt, supported by strong
bnlkhead, which Was removed with
ont bis knowledge, he ia not guilty
Of contributory negligence. (5.)
When the evidence rs to tie place
where such party worked is sufii J.
cient to show whether ii was safe,
1t ia not error for the Court to
charge the lnry that the mino own
or was bound 10 provide reason
ably safe place for him to work in,
without defining what safe
place was. Mollie Gibson Consoi-
dated Mining and Milling Company
Y. Sharp, 38 Pacific Reporter $50.
Failure to Enjoin Blasting is not
Contribntory Negligence. w here
a contractor is employed by party
to do blasting near another's house
proceeded with the work in 80
careless o manner that such house
was injured, the failue Of .he owner
of the house to enjoin the contin-
uanee of the work WAS not contrib
ntory negligence. Berg v. Par.
sons, 81 N. Y. S, Rep, 1901 +,
Supreme Court, First Department
Rights of Lessee of Water Power.
The lessee of the right to use a
certain amount Of water power from
canal may erect on the banks of
the canal. a steam plant essential
to the use of the water plant, but no
more than is necessary to supple
ment to such water plant.-Colum
bla W s.P. Co. v. Columbia Elec
St. Ry. l.. g. p. Co, 20 S. e. Rep,
1902, Supreme Court, south Caro-
lima.
Contributory Negligence Of En-,
ployees = Where, III an action by
an employee for personal injuries,
it appeared that he was aware of
the danger in putting his hand in
to picker while II was in motion,
or having his hand caught by the
feed roll hy reason of the defective
condition Of the machinery; that,
Notwithstanding hls knowledge of
the danger, he put his hand into
the picker while it was in motion,
instead Of first stopping it, as he
might have done, and bis finger
was caught and crushed, he was
guilty OF contributory negligence,
and it was proper to direct q yer
diet for the employer -GafDey V
Inman Mfg. Co, 81 Atlantic Re
porter, G, Supreme Court, Rhode
Island.
Patents on Machinery. Changes
of form do not AVOID infringements
when the two devices do the same
thIngin substantially the same way
and accomplish the same result.
An inventor is entitled to ali the
legitimate results of the invention
covered by his patent, including
even those which were not forseen
by him. Thomson Meter Co. v.
National Meter Co, 90 Fedora
Reporter, 427, United States Cir
cut Court of Appeals.
Prescrlptive Right to Flowage. -
A person 10y maintaining for Is
years a milldam so as to flow the
land of another, without complaint
from the other, acquires n prescrip-
tive right to flowase in the land -
Williams v. Barber 81 n. W. Rep,
l55, Supreme Court of Michigan,
Placer Patent-Exclusion Of
Quartz Lode. A lode or vein, to
come within the Revised Statutes
of the United States, Sec. 1888, |
exeiaptirg II from the grant of a |
placer patent il its existence was
known at the time of tho applica-
ton for such patent, must be of |
such extent to render the land more
and of such value as to |
Justify exploitation ard develop !
ment.- Browntield V Bier, SO Pac |
Rep. 46l, Supreme Court of Mont. |
ana.
Deceit in the Sale OF Mining |
C4.l m -. -. 4