Evening journal., 1915-10-16


get az its extreme right hand fight are
from one hundred and forty-four TO one
hundred and ninety-two yards. Sur
veyor Prico makes the very important
statement "if shot should remain IN
/ flight over a distance in excess of two
hundred yards from shooting point, it
would be possible for shot from any OF
the shooting points Of any Of the five
traps to reach the public road"
The next question is, what is the
limit of the flight Of shot fired from
guns as customarily used on the prem
/ ises of the defendant club2 This also ia
covered by mcontradicted evidence. III
was shown at test made elsewhere
than on the premises Of the club, that
under similar conditions as prevail at
the club shot would travel two hundred
and sixty-four yards. This test was
made by using the same kind Of gun,
powder and shot. the same quantity OF
powder and shot, and the gun was
lpointed and otherwise used in the same
manner rs was usual in trapshooting
at the club. the details of the test being
stated fully. The gun was fred TO.
wards a small pond and under the above
conditions shot fell into the pond until
the gunner had recoded two hundred
aud sixty-f -four yards from the pond.
II should be noted that the club in.
vites beginners and visitors 10 shoot at
the traps and the guns and ammuni-
tion may be procured elsewhere than
from the club, which however does sell
them, and II may he assumed that the
shooters are not always either careful
OF skillful In firing the guns There
] rfa q t..4ss a. I..n
highway is greater than IL would be IL
all the guuncrs were careful OF skillful
AT the hearing Of the application for
the preliminary injunction ] suggested
to counsel for the parties that test
be made under conditions which
would directly apply TO the premises
Of the club. and have waited some
days TO be Informed whether such
test had been, or would be. made. but
as yet have not been advised on the
subject Not being empowered to or
der such a test, 7 must decide on the
facts before me-
Deeming II as established. so far
as the testimany now before me at
this time is concerned, that the shoot.
ing at flying targets at the traps OF
the club Is a public nuisance menao-
ing the safety Of the users Of the
highway, who may IN the future. as
in the past. be struck hard by shot,
and have their horses so struck and
scared beyond control. and even per-
manently injured for road driving,
should be derelict In my duty n /
did not now require a discontlnuance
OF all shooting, by an order made
even In advance of a full final hear
, ing. II would be unwlse to subject
the travelling public to further peril
II, when the danger Is SO clearly shown.
y Whether. OF not. there rs sufficient
!, evidence presented to show that the
y noise of the guns is OF such a charac
ter as TO scare normally tempered
horses, and so cause injury to them
~ or TO cause them to get beyond con
~ troll OF the drivers, Is not neceasar,
" 10 decide at this time. though the
u evidence produced for the complain
= ant is strong on this subject too. Bu
= at this time the decision Is baseC
~ on the danger to users Of the public
y road from shot reaching the road
N There rs statute in this State
!, passed In 1891 which provides that
u mo person or persons shall keep q
2 gallery or BOOTH or other convent
e ence for the purpose OF target shoot
II lINf VI ViHti ildlN vi NhAli NN tue
4 use OF firearms within three
hundred yards of any road or pub.
e lie passway within the State un.
- less enclosed with walls of certain
J. proportions. and imposes penalty
4 for a violation OF the law. See 10
= Delaware Laws, Chapter 266, and Re.
{ vised Code of f9l5.par.
b do not consider that this statute
t has a material bearing on the question
II It applies. as I think it does, 10
4 trapshooting club such as the de-
i- fendant If the club. or its officers
r- or members. have violated H. they are
.el subject 10 indictment for misde
nj meanor. But that does not protect
ce the public from a recurrence. or ef
a. feet an abatement of the public nui
nd sance which exists If the safety of tn,
,or users of a public road Is imperiled
,ot The duty 20 abate the nuisance still
,at exists whoever may be convicted OF
in violation of the statute
inrl II was urged by the solicitors 10
no the defendants that the preliminar
HI. Injunction should not be awarded b.
M. cause there Is no evidence of irrepa
the able injury, or necessity TO preser,
rom the status quo until the final deterI
rot ination Of the cause. and urge that
tbe preliminary injunction would gi'
in this early stage of the eau
,.. the relief which could be Civ,
by final decree This gener
principle Is fundamental 10 the Z
W ercise of injunction relief. =
~. II is clearly inapplicahle where
continuance Of the nuisance will Z
"a danger public safety. No court cor
r.ns refuse 10 stop at once the operati
sad OF club who shoots guns tows
ha;r a public road in such a way as
- hit persons and horses on the pub
~ highway. whether the maintenance
a,oi such a club. Is directly made 1
~ lawful by statute or not. and so mn
,aai the more readily would court so
the II there was such statutory prohI
~ tion.
,cle It is also urged by the defenda
~ that As the club has been shoot
tba into the public road for FIVE yea
I'm and thereby endangering the us
Il Of the highway, and has for the p
noe poses Of sport alone expended Ia
. sums Of money on the premises
ror club house. traps and other thin
i've that there has been laches VIII
.e,. amounts to acquiescence on the p
, Of the relators. and while lapse
me time does not run against the pi
bv lie on an indictment for maintainl
rom a nuisance and for the abatement
one II. SIN the laches will debar rel
the by injunction and especially by
for preliminary injunction All of
q