raising of unsightly erections which destroy the beauty of rural scenery in Great Britain and Ireland. No more laudable object could be sought. If some similar measure can be adopted to protect not only the rural scenery but also the 'suburban scenery' in this country, it will be appreciated by a disgusted public. The advertising fiend has placed his blight ing mark upon both. Unsightly bill-boards have been erected at the most prominent points along every popular drive. Glaring circus bills cover the buildings within sight of the road. From the car windows, and from the cottage door at the resort, one can look on the beautiful scenery only to find it marred by an advertisement of some kind. Near every large city the highways, suburban and elevated railways, are lined with all kinds and varieties of signs and advertisements, oftentimes disgusting in character. Every State Legislature could not do better than to enact a law similar to the bill referred to." An act of this kind has been — we were about to say, in force, but more accurately should say — on the statute book, for many years in the State of New York, but we do not observe any diminution in the sign and advertisement nuisance. Bridges, fences, trees, rocks, are still debased with the appeals and puffs of hustling tradesmen and quack nostrum vendors.
NOTES OF CASES. Dangerous Premises. — " In the recent Indiana case of Woodruff v. Bowen (34 N.E. Rep. 1113), it was held that the widow of a fireman cannot re cover damages for his death caused by the collapse of a defective and dangerous building on which he was standing while fighting the flames. The fire had caught in the defendant's building and the plaintiffs husband went there at the call of duty. The building was weak in construction, and being stored with paper goods which absorbed the water that was poured in, it collapsed under the heavy weight. The court based its decision on the ground that the fireman was a mere licensee, and therefore the defendant had no responsibility towards him, except that of "abstain ing from any positive wrongful act," the fireman being regarded -as a licensee merely because the law gave him a right as against the defendant to intrude upon the premises for the public good. This from the "Central Law Journal," which continues: "It cer tainly accords much more with our sense of justice that the fireman's widow should recover some com pensation for the loss of her husband. In the case of Law v. Railway Co., 72 Me. 313, decided by the Supreme Court of Maine, damages were awarded to a custom-house officer, who was injured by a defect in the defendant's wharf, while watching there to pre
249
vent smuggling. The case of a fireman who is killed or wounded, owing to the defective construction of the defendant's building, while endeavoring to save the defendant's property, seems in principle much stronger." We think the decision was right, but should prefer to put it on the ground that the de fendant was only bound to make his building strong enough for ordinary purposes, and was not bound to foresee and provide against the additional weight of of water in case of fire. He is no more bound to do so than to make his building strong enough to re sist an earthquake. In the wharf case the structure was dangerous even in ordinary circumstances, and the officer's errand was an ordinary one. A recovery in the principal case would be too fanciful. In White v. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 5 Dillon, 429, however, the defendant, storing goods carried over his line, at the end of his route, in a warehouse, was held liable for their destruction by a fire which the firemen were deterred from extinguishing, by the fear of a large quantity of gunpowder stored by the de fendant in the same building.
The Saloon Nuisance. — Another novel Indiana case is Haggart v. Stehlin, 35 N.E. Rep. 997. A business block was built in a street previously used for private residences, and a saloon licensed by the county commissioners was opened in it, against the protests of the owners and occupants of the houses in the vicinity. The owner of an adjoining residence sued to recover damages for the injury caused by the proximity of the saloon, and produced testimony proving that her property had suffered damage on its account. The plaintiffs attorney took the ground that carrying on such a business is a nuisance of itself, tending to depreciate the value of property sit uated near it, and that damages must be given for such depreciation. The counsel for the defendant maintained that his license from the county commis sioners, in accordance with an act of the Legislature of the State, was a sufficient answer and justification. If he violated his license, the law could punish him, but the incidental injury to property in the vicinity, resulting from the presence of a licensed saloon, was not sufficient ground for a suit to recover damages — otherwise the law must treat as an injury what it ex pressly authorized and sanctioned. The plaintiff recovered damages, and this was sustained, the Court observing that "the liquor business is immoral, licensed on that account by the State so that the community may have legal safeguards against the damages by the unrestricted sale of liquor. The rights of the citizen are not to be sacrificed because the liquor traffic is regulated by act of the Legislature,
