Evening star., 1933-04-23
Fifty Years Ago
In The Star

In The Star Of April ls, 1888, is
printed the following dispatch from
Terrible Tale which. sGde "Ilsn' though rex; It
From Texas. nas nisd subsequently ss e yoaz as-
caused considerable alarm hest similar
happenings might occur elsewhere:
"A dispatch from, Williams Ranch
says that about o'clock Sunday morn
ing great meteor fell in the outskirts
Of the town, killing several head Of
cattle and destroying the dwelling
house of Martinez Garcia, a Mexican
herdsman, who, with his family, con-
sisting of a wife and five children. are
buried beneath the ruins. In its de-
scent the meteor resembled massive
ball of fire and the shock was similar
to that Of an earthquake. It is still
hot and steaming. 1t is imbedded in
the earth probably one hundred feet
and towers above the surface about
seventy feet and covers about one acre
of ground. The conclusion was ter
rifle. nearly every window in the town
violently from their beds and goods In
the storehouSes were thrown from the
shelves. No lives were lost as far as
known-eXcept the Mexican herdsman
and his family although several build
ings fell to the ground. The cattle fled
in terror in every direction. The air
was filled with sulphurous gas The
widest confusion prevailed, as it was
long time before anybody could even
conjecture what it was. This Is the
largest meteor that has ever fallen and
it has already been visited by many peo-
pie and will doubtless continue to at
tract great. attention for months to
come. It has occasioped great ex-
citement not only here but all over the
surrounding country"
The next days Star contains the fol-
lowing dispatch from Fort Worth:
photographic inquiries have been
made during the past twentyfour hours
about the accuracy Of the special re-
port that large meteor fell near here
cation shows that the story was utterly
baseless."
"An impression prevails in some quar-
ters," says The Star Of April 20, 1883,
that after prop
Electric Wires erty holders have
On Housetops. siyen ssve permission 1e1ssrsnS to
UelepnOQe OF eleCCrlC lRQC wire al.
tached to the roof or other portion Of
their premises and permitted it to re-
main there for while, it may not be
removed therefrom without the con-
sent of the other party interested. 1t
is likely that corporations owning or
using such wires seek to have that view
prevail but the doctrine does not stand
the test of actual trial. In other words,
it may be good theory for the wire own
ers, but it is not sound law. At least,
it is not in Connecticut, and 1t Is not
likely to be anywhere else when once
fairly tested. Not long ago the tele-
phone company asked Hartford mans
permission to put its wires for few
days on his roof. He was very glad to
oblige the company. but soon discov-
cred that it was disposed to'repeat the
parable of the camel that got its head
into the tent. After a month had
passed, the house owner notified the
company to take of its wires, and when
it neglected to do so, after waiting
further reasonable time, he took his
ak and cut them away. The company
sued him for malicious injury, but the
Judge charged the jury that the owner
of the house had as much right to the
use of bis roof as to the use OF his
parlor, and in a very few minutes the
jury brought in a verdict for the de-
fendant."