Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-07-14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
! lmportant Decisions1
WHISTLE AS NUISANCE

p" I1lS LIZ Nd NOlSAAN(f.
Complainant sought an injunction TO
restrain the blowing of a steam whistle
at the early hours of 4:30, $3.50 and
500 a. m. for the space of from two
to seven minutes. The blasts Of the
whistle We're declared to be long,
shrill. shrieking, discordant, startling.
terrific, awakening, to the plaintiff and
his family, disturbing his and their
sleep and seriously interfering with
the reasonable enjoyment OF their
home. and seriously impairing their
health" In denying the injunction,
the court said: The blowing of
whistles at factories to regulate and
direct the order of work may be nee
essary to the proper conduct of the
business: certainly it is not NUS
ance per Sc. Such sounds and noises
as these whistles are capable of MAX
ing can become nuisances however,
and the protecting arm of the law
can be invoked to prevent them. In
the present case, however, the evil
dence does not satisfy us that the
blowing of the whistle by the DEFEND
ant amounted to a nuisance.
Redd VS. Edna Cotton Mills, As 5. T..
Rep. T6l On. carr
GIVING LIQUOR TO MINOR.
Action was brought against one Pres
sly. a saloonkeeper, for selling liquor 20
a minor On the trial of the case the
defendant offered in evidence writing,
signed by the mother Ca widow) OF the
child to whom the liquor was gwen
wherein she stated, you can give my
children drinks of whiskey or branks a t
any time you may desire to 90 SO.
The supreme court held that this evil
dence was properly excluded, as the
Legislature intended to give the parent
power to consent to the giving OF
liquor to the minor only in cases OF
emergency"
DAMAGES.
Plaintiff, while drinking refresh
ing and harmless drink" from bottle
took into his system several pieces OF
broken glass. In an action to recover
damages the court held THAT the bot
tier is liable to the inbiber for the in
turies sustained in consequence OF the
glass getting into his stomach ana
that in estimating the damages, men
tai suffering caused by the rear OIL
death while the glass was IN MS sto'h-
ach. could be taken into account ou.
that vague fear, after the removal
Of the glass and his restorat ion 10
health. that at some time in the fu-
tnre he may again suffer as result Oh
his injuries, can not be made an eie-
ment OF damages. 20
watson VS.. Augusta Brewing co. %
s. e. Rep. 152 (Ga.)
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE.
In the case Of Smith vs.. North Mem
mis- Savings Bank. SO S. w. Rep s9s'
the Tennessee supreme court hoios
that the Tennessee statutes regulating
marriage contracts abrogated the colii-
mon law in that regard and PROVIDED
,ewand exclusive manner in which sucn
contracts should be made. and all mar
riages attempted to be entered INTO
without an observation of the statues
are null and void. The court SAID:
"The common law in it's entirety was
never in force in the state OF Tennes-
see. AS a distinctive body OF laws II
was never adopted by our general as
semhly or other authority, and OBJ
tanned in Tennessee only as part OF
the laws of North Carolina, In so far as
1t had been adopted and was IN force In
that state when this territory was
ceded by it to the federal government"
The court then proceeds to show that
at the time OF such session common
law marriages were not valid In North
Carolina