702
THE GREEN BAG
that which has never occurred and which is very unlikely to occur and which does not naturally suggest itself to prudent rrfen as something which should be guarded against is not negligence," the court said. NEGLIGENCE. (Municipal Corporation.) la. — In Wheeler v. City of Fort Dodge, 108 North western Reporter, 1057, the court holds that the stretching of a wire from the roof of a building downward and outward across a street and ending at a pole to which it is fastened, though stretched pursuant to the consent of the municipality and though through most of its course it is high above the heads of people using the walks and carriage ways, is a nuisance, because an obstruction of the street, the right of the public to the street extend ing indefinitely upward. In this case the wire had been stretched for the purpose of an acrobatic performance and a pedestrian walking along the street was injured by the performer on the wire falling and striking such pedestrian. The city was held liable for the injury. NEGLIGENCE. (See Landlord and Tenant.) PROPERTY. (Adverse Possession.) Tex.— The Texas statutes state adverse possession to be an actual and visible appropriation of the land, commenced and continued under a claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of an other. In the case of Link a. Bland, 95 S.W. mo. Bland settled or squatted upon 160 acres of land which he testified he knew belonged to the Texas & New Orleans R. Co. He further states that it was his intention to hold the land in hostility to the owner and every one else, and admitted that he had no title to the land, that he had never bought it or inherited it, nor had anybody ever given it to him. Knowing that he had no title, he took possession, claiming and intending to claim the land by virtue of his possession, and he continued to occupy it as his home under such claim based upon his possession alone for ten years. The court upholds the defendant's contention that he is en titled to the land by adverse possession in spite of the clause in the statute that the possession must be entered into under a claim of right. It is pointed out that the decisions of Texas, in spite of this statute, do not require that the entry and possession must be upon a claim of ownership and right of possession. The court refers to the de cision of the Supreme Court in Charle v. Saffold, 13 Tex. 112, and to many other decisions follow ing this leading case. Under this holding the court adds that appellee was a mere possessor, (which is it fair to interpret to mean a squatter), but such persons are. clearly within the protection of the statute even where they take and hold possession with the intention of acquiring title, by limitation, to something to which they have no claim otherwise.
PROPERTY.
(See Constitutional Law.)
SUNDAY LAWS. (Slot Machines.) S. C. — A case in which a rather novel point of law was raised is that of Cain v. Daly, 55 Southeastern Reporter no. It was there urged that as a Sun day law merely prohibited the labor of persons on the Sabbath, and as it was penal it could not be so construed as to embrace automatic machines. In answering this contention and holding that sales by automatic or slot machines were in cluded within the statute, the court says that while no case directly in point has been found, the language of the statute is plain and its purpose is to prevent the selling and buying of goods, wares, and merchandise on the Lord's Day, and its intention is to prevent opportunity for buying as well as the act of selling on Sunday. The goods in the slot machines are exposed to sale as effectu ally as if the owner or operator were present ex hibiting the goods and delivering them on receipt of the price, and it would in a large measure annul the Sunday law if such contrivances to evade it should be held successful. It may be, the court says, that the law-makers in 1691 had no concep tion of such vending machines, but that cannot be affirmed of the law-makers in 1902 when the statute was re-enacted. TORTS. (Injunction — Boycotts) . Cal. — Goldberg Bowen & Company v. Stablemen's Union, Local No. 8760, 86 Pacific Reporter 806. was an action for injunction to restrain a labor union from damaging plaintiffs' business by means of pickets. The union had placed repre sentatives or pickets in front of the place of busi ness of plaintiffs, carrying placards or transparen cies false in fact, and bearing the words and figures: "Unfair firm; reduced wages of em ployees 50 cents per day. Please don't patronize," and it was alleged that by means thereof the union had intimidated complainants' patrons. The union claimed that an injunction was pro hibited by an act which provided that no com bination between two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of any trade dispute between em ployers and employees shall be deemed criminal nor shall those engaged therein be indictable or otherwise punishable for the crime of conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime, nor shall any restraining order or injunction be issued with relation thereto, provided that nothing in the act shall be construed to authorize force or violence or threats thereof; but the court held that this act did not deprive it of power to restrain a boycott of plaintiffs' business during a strike by means of pickets and persons stationed in front of its place of business, bearing signs and transparencies derogatory to it.
