Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1912-06-08

for public Anue1ment and jibeo ID to
lessen the c6mfpfts ara en3oymsnts to
which that person -. entitled. every
joke which q man may b willing 70
relate about himself for the amuse-
ment Of his acquaintance does not
justify another In printing It. To pub
lish Of living person that he Is dead
10 not that sportive and thoughtless
ridicule that may beget laughter. that
leaves the temporary victim Unaffected
In his reputation and his business and
10 not necessarily libeloua' An anus
ing incident may be 80 harmless that
the courts can easily determine that no
injury has been done the person who
may be the subject OF 1t, but yet no
one can be held up In a false print for
the public amusement to his annoy
anca and embarrassment without hav-
ing an action for libel, even tho the
damage be slight"
A CHICKEN EATING HOG STORY.
One Means owned Il Chicken eating
hog" which had a propensity to run
away from its pen to worry and kIll
certain chickens owned by one Morgan.
Of Morgan. this same hog attempted to
upon Morgan got out his trusty old
musket and shot the disturber OF his
chickens peace In the public road In
front OF his house. Means did not APP
prove OF this unlawful killing. this
atrocious deed. which sr!s.ea him 40.
that, to place the good name Of his de-
ceased hog right with the world. ne
brought suit. At thettrial Judgment was
snI III kN1 falr
less, he appealed In Means VS.. Nor
gan Sc Southern Reporter $50. the APP
pellate court of Alabama holds this
was not a justiflable killing, for the
maxim that one who suffers his ami
mails to run at large takes on himself
the risks incident thereto applies only
to trespassing on the lands of another.
and therefore does not apply here. for
the hog was killed in the public high
way A Judgment is rendered in favor
OF Means for the hogs value. 81.
LIABILITY OF CITY FOR INJURIES.
Plaintiff. while passing along side
walk in the city of Danbury, Conn.,.
was hit on the head and injured by a
! falling limb which had been broken
off by the wind from dead tree
standing within the limits of the
street and overhanging the sidewalk.
The tree had existed in its dangerous
| condition for moro than Il year. and
! constituted a nuisance upon the high
way. The town of Danbury had a
| tree warden, and assumed the exciu-
| sive control. care. and protection OF all
the trees upon its streets. The supreme
court of errors of Connecticut in Dyer
VS.. City OF Danbury, 81 Atlantic Re-
porter. 95S holds that the overhang-
ing limb endangered travel upon the
! highway, and that therefore 1t was the
duty of the city to remove it; but
since this duty was public govern
mental one, for the neglect OF which
no liability at common law ensued to
the city, and no statute imposed any,
| the city. was rot liable.
A PROM" rs NOT A PROMISE"
In a ltae case entitled Latham VS..
State, 141 Southwestern Reporter. 953.
defendant was charged with the Of
Ifense OF seduction under an indictment
which read that the act denounced was
fobtained "by means and in virture of
prom OF marriage" motion to quash
was filed because the word prom" was
used for promise. and therefore the In
dictment did not charge a promise to
marry. The court Of criminal appeals
of Texas holds that because OF this
defect "the indictment Is fatally de-
lfective,' and "the judgment is reversed.
land the prosecution ordered dis
missed" s