The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-01-25
WAS OVERRULED.
Demurrer OF Stephen w. Waterman
Dismissed.
Was Filed In Case Brought by Maria SUI
lyan For $4,000 Damages.

The Appellate Cou rt has overruled the de-
PENDANTS demurrer in the $40, 600 suit brought
by Maria sullivan W.. stephen W. Waterman
for alleged damages done TO the reputation
OF a lodging house by the defendant in bring
ing three women of alleged questionable rep
utation.
The opinion OF the court was written by
Judge Tillinghast After reciting the formal
part OF the declaration some OF the charges
contained therein which includes the one,
'that, contriving and intending to hurt and
injure the good name and credit Of said
house, the defendant grossly mishehnved
himself therein in this that upon the 10th Of
May, 1897. in the night time, and upon other
nights between that time and the date of the
plaintiffs writ he brought or caused 10 come
to his said rooms certain dissolute women
without the knowledge and against the will
OF the plsintiff, and kept said women there
until late hour Of the night, in consequence
whereof certain good people, who hsd in
ten ded TO take rooms in said house for hire
did not take them whereby the plaintiff
suffered loss and damage"
The opinion continues as follows: "To this
declaration the defendant has demurrer on
the ground that II does not sat forth any un-
lawful or yrongful act of the defendant ND on
which an action can be founded"
The court then says; We think the declnra-
tion states cause of action. Ii cannot be
seriously argued that man who hires rooms
in dwelling house 10 be used lodging
rooms has any right TO apply them to the pur-
pose OF assignation, or TO create nui-
sance therein. And that wrong which arises
from the unreasona BILE or unlawful use by a
person of his own premises, or from his own
improper. indecent or unlawful personal con-
duct, working an obstruction Of or injary 10
the right of another is n nuisance, Is clear
both upon sound principles of reason and
judicial authority.
"A nuisance, says Smith in his manual of
the common law.is something done which has
the effect of prejudicially and unwarrantably
affecting the enjoyment of the rights Of
another See also Aldrich vs. Howard 5, II. /.
2a6. OF course it must arise from some un-
lawful act: for that which is lawful can never
be "a nuisance. Some legal right must be
violated and some material annoyance, injury
or damage must be sustained thereby. But
where there Is a material injury, damage il
implied whore 1t results from the violation
OF legal right. The declaration in the case
at bar shows the violation OF a legal right.
The plaintiff had the right to the good name
and fame which her house had acquired in
the community, ana to the income and profit
which such reputation aided In producing.
They are elements of value in the prosecution
of her business, and She is AZ much entitled
to bo protected in the enjoyment thereof as
she is in the enjoyment OF any other property.
The good name Of boarding house or lodging
house. like the good name of hotel or any
other place OF entertainment, Is of vital i'm
portanco 70 the success of the proprietor, and
anyone who wrongfully Injuries such good
name is guilty OF tortious act which the
law will redress in damages. The declaration
shows that the defendant 10y his misconduct
has injured the good name of the piaintiT's \
house, and that ny reason thereof she has
been damaged by the loss Of custom and bust
ness. In other words, IL shows tho commits
sion OF wrong resulting in injury and
damage and this beir 40 IL states n case for
redress, there being in contemplation of law
no wrong without romedv.'
The state OF the acts mentioned in the dec
laration IL held sufficient without any mention
that they constituted nuisance and the
court further holds that there Is no reason
why the plaintiff oannot recover under n
general charge OF damage and that she is not
obliged to allcRe specific losses