Evening journal., 1915-10-16
Chancery Decree SiIences
DUPONT Club Shooting
continned Prom First page.

count. 49,.
The decision OF this case at this
preliminary stage is not difficult u
Is the duty of the Attorney General
60 seek. and Of court OF equity 10
grant. an injunction to prevent the
continuance Of a public nuisance
which affects or endangers the pup
lie safety. and. therefore, require I'M
mediate judicial interposiuon- see
the citations Of the defendants so
iicitors, Joyce on Injunctions, sec
ton 1918. 1879; 2 Beach on lnlunc-
tions Section 1919. These support the
sound and reasonable proposiuon
urged by the defendants. which Is
thus stated in their brief;
THE power of n court OF equity TO
enion the commission OF public
nuisance al the suit Of the Attorney
General Is limited TO those Of public
unisances which AFFECT or endanger
she nuhlic safety or convenience, and
require immediate judicial interposi-
ton
In effect this principle has been
recognized in this State where the
dutv Of the Attorney General 10 in
woke nv an interposition Of the in
iunctive power OF the Court or Chan
cerv 10 prevent the continuance OF a
public nuisance to protect the pub
lie from serious injury. Atty. Gen.
pavnard. s Del. Ch. 400; Harlan,
g. Co. v. Psschall. Del. Ch. 435.
rbo former case related 10 a building.
narts Of which extended over the pub
liz street Of the City OF Wilmington,
b and So regarded as an obstruction
M the free use Of the highway. The
"a inflammation
on the relation OF an adjoining owner
for an abatement. and the case was
heard on a rule for a preliminary
Injunction. The Chancellor, while
recognizing his power, refused 10
Grant the preliminary Injunction be-
rauee n was not clearly shown that
A was necessary 10 do so in order 10
proiect the public from serious IN
Jury. He expressly said TINS;
"Tn clear case OF substantial ana
material encroachment upon public
street or highway. Of such char
acter as 10 seriously interfere with
itr uee. I would consider II my duty
N act without the aid OF jury: but
where the encroachment, although
illegal. Is not OF that character. the
nroper tribunal Is a court OF law,
which has. full power. not only to
punish the offender, but also TO abate
4the nuisance
Tho other case cited related 10 a
e wharf and the bill was by an adioin-
llnr owner 10 enjoin the building or
Il into the river 80 rs 70 damage ine
contplainant. The relief was denied
because the evidence aid not sustain
tho claim made by the bill. But the
~. al
principles. Indeed, they arc too well
established to be debated.
H. therefore, IL Is made reasonabl
clear that the safety Of users of ia
highway is irnperiled by the shooting o
Inc premises Of the club al flying tai
gets Nv members Of the club, and oth'
persbns invited and permitted to shos
'thtre then a public nuisance exists ~
"A Il clearly the duty OF tho court
protect the public from injury by u
junction whatever other remedy the
NAV BE- 10 enforce an abatement OF Oh
nuisance. II the menace 10 the publ
Is serious. II is equally the duty OF IN
court 10 grant a preliminary injunction
against "a continuance Of offensive con
duct pending a final hearing on the ful
evidence adduced in the regular cours
facts are shown by ex parte afhdayits-
Has II been shown that the safety q
The public has been and will be menacet
bv the shooting from the traps OF th'
rlubl The complainant established con
clusively that prior to the discontinu
snce Of the use Of trap No. shot dle
20 onto sud beyond tnc road, with very
serious actual consequences 70 users o
the highway. In answer 70 this the de
PENDANTS assert that the shot which wen'
INTO the road were from trap No. /
being the one nearest the rad and tha
the uso Of this trap had been discontin
ned They also produced plot show
iur thc location of three of the hN
traps. being those ncascEt the road. bu
not including the other two. which ia'
almost towards the road. and an al
dsvit Of the president Of the club, AZ
othcrs. that trap No. I was no long
used: that It was impossible 70 sho
into the road from the other traps; IN
the afiants stood "at various places
the public road while shots were bel
fired from al the traps; and that
shot fell into tho road Obviously &
WIS inconclusive for n was not IN
Gated at what points in the road
atlantis stood. and 40 the distances fr
the traps were not shown, and n did
appear that they were IN range OF
shot from the guns.
But IN reply, the relators filed athd
It's which settle quite clearly that s
from each Of the shooting points
each of the FIVE traps can reach
public road. To make this clear, an
elanafion should be made Of the nj
ner in which the shooting is conduc
When fhc discs are flung from the u
lhev NAV flv 10 the right or left.
may be shot at at any point IN q
aicht. some persons shooting quickly
fhe rise and some later at the fall
lhe target 50 that the guns are poir
"A various elevations and in various
rections. BY the rules Of the natit
association, which are observed Dy
club. the traps must be such as not
fling the targets at greater AT
than forty-hye degrees on each side
line drawn through the trap and
senter firing position connected
zach trap. In other words. each trap
expected 10 fling targets within ral
If niuetv degrees. II was shown by
survey and measurements of a survel
that the distances of the twenty
shooting points IN the rear OF the s.
eral traps 10 the public road along
hne which viii pass through the extre
right hand limit of the area covered
the possible flight Of targets range IT
one hundred and three Yards TO
hundred and ninety-two yards; that
distance Of one OF the firing points
tran No , so tnqa suraI - ,no b,,,,