The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-01-02
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

NOVEL POlNT6 OF THE LAW.
An application Of New Jersey law to
New Jersey stenches In a manner prom
ising relief for the fiat jewellers on upper
Manhattan Island has been made by
Vice-Chanceltor Lewis in H%arrigan vs.
Sinclair q Valentine Co, In which the
court holds that an ink factory emitting
offensive and noxious fumes. which
cause irritation of the throat and some
times vomiting spells, and render living
In the vinicity unhealthy In view Of the
situation Of the dwelling OF complainant
along the Palisades. ut the foot Of which
the factory was located. will be enjoined
as a nuisance.
In his opinion vice-C Chancellor Lewis
says:
1.-THE complainant. Mrs. Ellen Z. Har-
rigan, and n large number Of the resi-
dents Of the place. property owners. al
lege that there issues from the defend
ants property a noxious and unwhole-
some fume which renders iving In the
vicinity Of II not only unbearable, so
far as physical comfort goes. but de-
%structive to health. A very large num-
her OF witnesses have appeared in sup
port Of the complainant. They Uniform
~ teOtify that they had detected the
fume almost daily and related the effect
it had upon them. Almost Invariably
these witnesses stated that they had
suffered from irritation Of the throat
while the fumes were passing through
the air. and In some cases II resulted in
violent vomiting spells. I cannot be-
lieve that the large number of witnesses
OF the complainant wilfully mlsstatcd
facts OF the court IN this issue. They
all say they have noticed the fumes re-
Gently and since tho improvements. The
fact that the fume Is not noticed BY
some Of the neighbors does not prove
that II Is not n nuisance to others. Many
OF the complainant's witnesses before
me have been long residents OF the Bor-
ough Of Edgewater. and some for a con-
siderable period before the factory OF the
Sinclair 4 Valentine Company was To-
Gated there. The typographical condi-
tons at Edgewater must be considered
In dealing with this case. The dwellings
OF the complainant and of the larger
part or the population OF Fdgewater are
situated along the side of the Palisades,
some distance up the mountain side. The
place selected by the Sinclair & Valen-
tine Company for It's factory site is at
the base OF these clifs. In locating
there they must nave had In view the
} fact that when the prevailing wine was
favorable n odor or fume from their
ground would necessarily affect the
complainants In their homes"
Commenting OF the decision the New
York Lar Journal says:
, "Th stenches still continue to ema-
!, nate from a factory or factories at the
base of the Palisades. and that they
have been increasing. rather than dimin-
ishing. during the past six months. resi-
dents OF the Borough OF Manhattan will
Z bear witness. Not only are these odors
! very offensive. tending to diminish the
availability and value Of West Side New
York property for residential purposes.
but New Workers. will %orroborat the
2 eyidanca utyap ~ Nav. Tar~o,. thn, ,A.,.
Q also produce nausea and vomiting
Z spells. Moreover. IL was suggested not
long ago in a letter 10 the press by a
New York physician that the foul smells
lead 20 the hermetical sealing of sleep
Ing apartments in New York and thus
. indirectly promote tuberculosis. II Is a
; source OF very great satisfaction to New
Workers that residents Of New Jersey
are proceeding to abate these %nuisances,
0 and the attitude displayed by the Vice
Chancellor encourages the hope that the
evil may he stamped out by the New
Jersey State courts. There are. how
ever. several factories located at the
base OF the cliffs In the Borough Of
9 EdEewater. and unless complete relief
Is speedily obtained public authorities
Of the State Of New York should take
, action for the protection of health and
u property"
9 The following extract is taken from
'" ~ We iNtPs ~ ~ NletT Una
the defendant was capable OF trans
n acting business even when his breath
r was loaded with the fumes OF alcohol"
, This leads the Central Lao Journal
!, 10 remark But how about the other
y fellow
Where n prairie fire is neglipently
caused by n railway company, and the
q wife OF a homestcader. who IL left al
home alone with her young daughter,
uses every reasonable effort to put out
u such fire, and in doing so ovcrworks
G and strains herself so that permanent
, injuries ensue. held. that she can re-
cover damages from such company
= therefor. provided that she did not un-
reasonably and recklesslv EXPOSE her
self TO such injury Wilson VS. North
ern Pacific R'y, y. Oak. 1915. 1853 y.
n w, 429)."
e The Supreme Cour, OF California holds
that II may be negligence for those In
q charge OF n hospital to leave n solution
OF blohloridc of mercury In a patients
c ROOM. whore II might be reached by him
e while delirious.-Wilbu VS.. Emergency
n Hospital Association.
= The Central Lao Journal saws that
Q ~concealment OF the identity OF the keeper
OF n "hlind tiger appears seriously
menared by a late decision ny the Geor-
o gia Court Of Appeals. and the conviction
OF one OF Its agents may be a valuable
lesson in other jurisdictions. Slaughter
vs.. State. Sc s. +. al. In this case II
was held that where defendant received
money from another person requesting
him to procure him some whiskey and
he goes of and returns with the whls-
key. the burden was on defendant 10 ex.
!" plain where, how and from whom he
l. got the Nuuor, II ne Is to be exonera,eI