The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1915-11-11
NOVEL POINTS OF LAW
CONSTRUED BY COURTS
RIGHTS OF CHICKEN OWNER
HARAssED BY Doe-eUG IN
CHEWING TOBACCO.

he right OF an owner of fowls to
protect them against a trespassing aos
was decided in Coliinson VS.. Weir, ON
appeal from the j.astice court to the
county court of Lewis county, New
YORK, in which the verdict oil a Jury
taat there was no cause OF action was
lpAeld The plaintiff sued to recover
he Value OF d dog killed by farmer
laeduse the dog was chasing his tur-
Legs ON ms farm, The testimony
Showed that three dogs were chasing
us Iioek OF turkeys, when he got his
shot gun and killed one OF the dogs
when II was about feet from a fly
ing turkey, The decision of County
Judge Carter says:
me owner Of fowls has always had
the right to protect them against a
trespassing dog, and il necessary in
order to protect them to kill the dog.
1t was for the jury to determine whe-
ther the killing was justified by the
necessity of the case, and as requis-
lie to preserve the fowl. | think the
jury was justified by the evidence In
reaching the conclusion it did. The
right to kill dog found trespassing
and endangerng property is not af-
fected by the relative value of the dog
and the property being injured"
Not Liable for Bug in Tobacco.
The fact that a consumer of plug
chewing tobacco found large black
bug embedded in plug of tobacco
did not make the manufacturer of the
tobacco liable for injury to the con-
sumer under a decision by the SUI
preme court of Tennessee In Liggett
& Myers Tobacco Co. vs.. Cannon. The
court of civil appeals of the state had
reversed judgment for the plaintlff
because negligence was not shown but
legatiVed. 1t was shown that in de-
iendants tobacco plant the process of
manufacture was under continuous
until the tobacco was put
into plug form, and that there were
maintained appliances for keeping the
tobacco until completed as to manu-
tacture clear of dirt or foreign sub
stances The case is similar to the
Wisconsin case of Hasbrouek VS.. Ar
mour Company, in which it was held
that manufacturer of soap, who sells
only to the trade, was not liable for
injury to consumer through the
presence of needle, which in some
WqV had hponr11e, ip,haAlo1 IL
Of soap, which cake was sold, with
others, in the usual way, to a dealer.
The Mayor Was Drunk.
lntoxication within the meaning at a
statute permitting the removal of a
mayor from office for lntoxication is
held in the Iowa case of State ex rel
Cosson VS.. Baughn, 143 N. w. 100, to
be shown by the fact that the incum
bent of the office drank whisky, was
looking for more, and entered into an
argument on the street in tones so
loud as to be heard across the street.
applying profane and approbrious cpl
thets to his opponent, and although a
large crowd collected about him, re-
luSeu 10 WlthdfaW upon request to let
them dispense while his speech was
impaired and he was unable to stand
steadily, so that he impressed by
ISLANDERS as being intoxicated.
Not a Qualified Juryman.
II want to be excused" said the
worried looking juryman, addressing
he Judge II owe man five pounds
hat | borrowed, and as he is leaving
England today for some years, l want
o catch him before he gets on the
BOAT and pay him the five pounds"
you are excused" returned his
ordship, in icy tones. II don't want
anybody on the jury who can lie like
hat. "-Central Law Journal