The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-07-12
WHOLE RISK
ON BURGLAR
Assumes Liability From
Secret Spring-Gun
DECISION BY SUPREME COURT
Unique Precedent Set IN Seheuer-
mann Case
Tenant Respensible to Ordinary In
trader for Injury Unless Notice
II Given, Rut Case il DR.
fersnt with Thieves.
DECISION BY SUPREME COURT

On account Of the deluge OF de-
cisions which came from the Supreme
Court q few days ago when that tri-
bunal spoke last, naturally some of
the unique presidents laid down were
overlooked by those not directly In
terested. The layman may have over
looked the case OF Sam Scheuermann
pro ami, VS.. William scharfenberg. APP
pealed from the Morgan Circuit Court.
and only the presence Of Hon. John
Eyster. of New Decatur. in Montgom-
cry yesterday served to remind one
Of the precedent contained In the de-
ctsfon therein.
Mr.. Eyster lost his suit, but, as he
says, Alabama lawyers now know that
IL feloniously bent person enters up
tempting to burglarize q residence or
store IL killed or wounded by spring
gun II Is entirely his fault. Such an
unfortunate, IL merely injured, can
not recover damages for trespass Con
his person) nor can his next friend or
administrator have anything on g
similar suit II the intruder 10 killed.
Scheuermann. a resident Of New De-
catur. lost one of his eyes while. ac-
burglary of store belonging to Mr..
Scharfenberg of New Decatur, several
months ago. 1t seems that the plain
tin tried to enter the store of the de-
PENDANT at night. When he swung the
window open, like a stroke of lightning
q shot gun was discharged from the
center Of the house.
The shot were small, but they were
thick enough to put out the eye of the
IN NJ the fnnk af-
feet In his face. The report brought
curious citizens and the police to thu
scene where they found Scheuermanp
in extreme agony. He was taken to
a hospftaf~ in Nashville and as soon
as he returned home he filed a suit for
damages against the store owner.
In an opinion written by Justice j.
J. Mayfield 1t is pointed out that the
question has been settled universally
in this country that the owner or ten
ant of premises. Is he would set a
trap gun, Is liable to an ordinary in
truder for injury unless some sort Of
notice is given to the public. But IL
is different matter when there is
not only an entry upon the land OF
another. but an actual effort to COM
init burglary either OF the home or
place where goods are stored. Such
persons are made by the law to act on
their peril upon the settled principle
of law that q man may use force
enough to kill another when such ap-
pears to be the only way to prevent
a felony. "a ,tf
Instances were cited by. the court Of
innocent tr&Velerss ON the highway be.
ing killed when seeking shelter In .
house belonging to another, the caure
Of the killing being a spring gun; Of
a person entering an apple orchard for
the supposed purpose of stealing ?p-
Piles. and being shot by a spring gun.
In both cases the personal represent
atives or the person himself recovered
damages against the owner.
The case in Alabama is the first suit
OF the kind. and the law
yers have now precedent TO
look to and all men are given a
warning that guns set for automatic
fire just anywhere on their premises
renders them liable. unless 1t is shown
that the intention of the party inirud-
ing was to commit burglary or some
other felony.