The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-01-25

GQAAlnlGu ETUtM rags OnEs
place Of public resort by which the
peace. comfort, or decency OF the Inn
mediate neighhorhood is habitually
disturbed, are hereby declared to be
common n~uisances.' Following these
declarations are those of injunction,
the right to close the building for one
year after judgment. IL same had
been unlawfuIly used, etc, and pro-
cedure covering such cases. The act
follows closely the language of the
prohibitory law, save that with refer
ence to the particular questions here
involved there is q special statute APP
plying in the prohibitory law which
is not found in the statute under
consideration.
The decisions. therefore, from our
supreme court upon the question of
the knowledge of the owner, do not af-
fcrd any light in the construction Vt
this statute.
In section 3 OF the act there is a.
provision that after the sheriff closes
the building, he must keep it CLOSED
until final Judgment is entered or n
til the possession Of the same shall
be disposed of by an order of the
court, or judge, upon a hearing a
before it for such purpose" 1T Is un-
der this provision that the hearing
is now being had. Testimony has
been received, and the court is called
upon at this time, not to decide the
action upon it's merits, because the
same has not been tried, but simply
to pass upon the question OF whether
during the tendency of the action the
applicant who is a defendant cam
have the possession of the building.
The final and future possession there
of, of course would be dependent up
on the result of the trial. Under b
testimony with reference to the
knowledge of the agent as indicated
above, 1t would be an anomalous situ-
alton, in view of all the discussion
concerning this subject and consid-
ering the forcible utterance of the
legislature Just mentioned, If parties
living not far distant from the build
ing, and in fact carrying on a bust
ness beneath the rooms above, taking
the rent each month and having the
common knowledge Of average men
Of intelligence, could quietly fold their
arms, enjoy all the fruits Of the I'M
lawful traffic, and then with his rec
ord come before a court of equity In
a civil action, as this is, and be
tirely relieved, simply because their
agent had not conveyed to them the
knowledge which he possessed con-
corning the use of the premises. Ger
LdllllJ III d1Ag Al CALNAAA . vi p. At-S
where civil responsibility obtains the
principal could not escape responsible
lily, and why ought he In a matter of
this description? A landlord has no
right to fold his arms and without
due inquiry rem his property or per-
NIT 1t to be rented through an agent
for an unlawful purpose, especially in
view of the fact that he must know
that If his property is like the rooms
under consideration 1t would be COM
monty known as being in the
blocks
we have a familiar illustration of
the responsibility of an owner of a
vicious dog, the general rule being
that before a person injured by
dog could have a right OF action
against the owner, he must show that
the owner knew, or a reason to
know, that the dog was vicious; but
the authorities are overwhelming that
the knowledge of the agent is inn
puted to the principal, and where the
servant is given control of the dog,
his knowledge Of its p~ropensities is
the knowledge Of the master and binds
him, ever though he may not have
had any personal knowledge whatso-
v Twenty-four L. r. A. 46S,
note: Meilke ". Schabble (Mich) 1913
N. w. 552.
1t may be urged that legislation of
this kind is drastic and that the APP
plicant is liable to lose financially
by failure to receive his rent This
is exactly true, and doubtless was so
intended by the legislature. The his
tory of this CLOSING idea as Ii de-
veloped in the state of Iowa with
reference to places where Intoxicating
liquor was unlawfully sold is inter-
esting indeed, as afording an add
tional and a much needed remedy.
Our legislature borrowed the idea,
carrying it first into the prohibitory
law, and from there into the Bawdy
House Act. For two ear it has been
upon the statutes. 1t does not apply
alone to buildings in segregated dis
tricts, but to blocks as we'll. The
statute says, "Or any other house,
room, or place for persons to visit"
etc, for such unlawful purpose.
There may be instances where the
owner might have his building return
ed to him, but the evidence will not
warrant 1t in this case.
In view Of the foregoing, 1t is or
dered, that the application OF the de-
PENDANT Rockwell be and the same is
hereby denied, with costs, besides the
usual motion costs of $40 and the
sheriff is directed to continue in pos
| session Of the premises during the
tendency OF this action. Exception
saved.
Dated this 25th day Of January. A.
ID. 1913.
BY the court chas. A. Pollock,
Judge.
Additional society.