Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/553

 426

THE GREEN BAG

family while not living with him nor dependent on him for support? The Missouri Court of Appeals says, in Western Commercial Travelers' Associa tion v. Tennent, 106 S. W. Rep. 1073, that she is not. In that case her husband, who was an able-bodied man. was living with her and the court said she could not be a member of two families at the same time. LANDLORD AND TENANT. (Constructive Eviction.) N. Y. Sup. Ct. — Apartment house dwellers will find an interesting discussion of some of their rights in Jackson v. Paterno, 108 N. Y. Supp. 1073. Plaintiff leased an apartment from defendant. There was no stipulation in the lease as to heat, but the court held that a covenant for quiet enjoyment would be implied -and that it would be construed as including an agreement to furnish heat where all the heating apparatus was in control of the landlord. It was also said that failure to furnish heat under such circum stances would constitute a constructive eviction if the tenant elected to so treat it and moved out, but that no eviction could be claimed if the tenant remained in occupancy. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Right to stand in Street.) Mo. Sup. Ct. — Has a citizen a right to stand for a considerable length of time on the street of a city, so long as he does not obstruct the traffic or interfere with the rights of others? This question was passed upon by the Supreme Court of Missouri in the case of City of St. Louis v. Gloner, 109 S. W. Rep. 30. The city had passed an ordinance making it a misdemeanor for any person to lounge or stand around or about street corners or other public places. Defendant was doing " picket duty " in the street of the city near a clothing house where the employees were on a strike, and was arrested and prosecuted for violating the above ordinance. The evidence showed that each morning and evening he, together with others, spent considerable time in the street and on the walks near the clothing house talking with the employees. The court held that the ordinance was in violation of Art. 2, § 4 of the Constitution which guaranteed every citizen the right of personal liberty and that defendant had the right to stop and remain in the street so long as he conducted himself properly and did not interfere with the use of the street by others. This is a questionable decision. At common law, the right of the public in a highway is simply a right to pass and repass. It is illegal for one of the public to use a highway for pasturing cattle (Dovaston v. Payne, 2 H. Bl. 527), for hunting (Queen v. Pratt, 4 E. &. B. 860), for interference with another's lawful

hunting, though with the laudable design of preventing cruelty (Harrison v. Duke of Rut land, 1893, i Q. B. 142), or for standing in it and uttering abuse of a neighbor (State v. Davisf 80 N. C. 351). This being the doctrine of the common law, it is a perverted notion of the personal liberty clause that it gives a citizen the liberty of doing an unlawful act; and it is surely within the police power to regulate the use of highways in accordance with the common law. Such regulations are not uncommon, and have always been sustained. 28 Cyc. 910. J.H.B. NEGLIGENCE. (Landlord and Tenant.) Mich. — The duty of a landlord toward an ill person in the home of his janitor was the question for determination in Tucker v. Burt, 115 N. W. Rep. 722. Plaintiff's son-in-law was janitor of an apartment building owned by defendant and lived in rooms in the basement. While plaintiff's boy was there in charge of her daughter he was taken ill. It was arranged that the boy should remain there and while plaintiff was taking care of him she was taken ill with erysipelas. Defendant having learned of plaintiff's illness and the infectious character of it, notified her son-in-law that he must take her out of the building and on the following forenoon told him that he must do so at noon or he would bring an officer to put them all out, whereupon plaintiff left. The plaintiff claimed damages for aggrava tion of the illness consequent on her leaving. The court held that the janitor was not a tenant, but merely an employee of the defendant and as such had no right to bring into his employer's house to reside with him any one without his employer's assent and that since the defendant had not invited plaintiff to his house or authorized his employee to do so and the disease was infectious and dangerous to the tenants in the house, he was under no obligation to "keep her there if she could be removed without danger of serious injury and violated no duty to her in causing her removal. NEGLIGENCE. (Theaters.) R.I. — In Brown v. Batchellor, 69 Atl. Rep. 295, damages are claimed as the result of an accident at a theatrical entertainment. A part of the performance con sisted in an exhibition of bicycle riding, in the doing of which one of the riders went over the edge of the platform and against plaintiff, who occupied a front seat. The lower court sus tained a demurrer to the declaration on the ground that it was not the duty of defendant to erect barriers as alleged therein and for the further reason that it failed to set out in what the alleged negligence consisted. The Supreme