of the defendants in error. All the evidence is embodied in the bill of exceptions and is brought before us for review. The result of our examination is that we see no reason to warrant us in disturbing the findings of the court upon the issues of fact.

2. It is also claimed that as the fee to the street is vested in the city, the abutting lot owners are not entitled to an injunction, whatever damage or injury may result to their lots; that their only remedy is by civil action against the company to recover for such injury.

The statute under which the fee of streets, is vested in the city provides as follows: "That all proprietors of lots or ground in any city or town corporate in this State, who have subdivided or laid out, or who shall hereafter subdivide or lay out the same in lots for sale, shall cause accurate and true maps or plats thereof to be recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which such town or city may be situated; which maps or plats so to be recorded, shall set forth and describe, with certainty, all grounds laid out or granted for streets, alleys, ways, commons or other public uses; * * * and such map or plat so recorded, shall be deemed a sufficient conveyance to vest the fee of the parcel or parcels of land therein set forth and described, or intended to be for streets, alleys, ways, commons or other public uses, in such city or town corporate, to be held in the corporate name thereof, in trust to and for the uses and purposes so set forth and expressed or intended." S. & C. 1843; Chase 1846.

It seems to us it can make no material difference where the fee is vested, so long as it is held to the same defined uses.

The established doctrine in this State is that the abutting lot owners "have a peculiar interest in the street, which neither the local nor the general public can pretend to claim, a private right of the nature of an incorporeal hereditaments, legally attached to their contiguous grounds, and the erections thereon; an incidental title to certain facilities and franchises, assured to them by contracts and by law, and without which their property would be of little value. This easement, appendant to the lots, unlike any right of one lot owner in the lot of another, is as much property as the lot itself."

In speaking of the rights of the public in the street, in the case already referred to, the court (on p. 549), say: "It" (the public) "may regulate and modify the manner of using the street by the public at large, and may, undoubtedly, devote its own interest to the maintenance of new structures placed in the hands of other agencies, and calculated to enlarge the general purposes for which the highway was originally constructed. But where these new structures, and new modes of travel, devolve additional burdens upon the land, and materially impair the incidental rights of the owner in the highway, they require more than the public has, or can grant, and the deficiency can only be supplied by appropriating the private right upon

HOWLAND V. MILWAUKEE, LAKE SHORE & WESTERN RY.. Co. February 7, 1882.

Railroad-Accident to Employe.-Plaintiff, while going as a shoveler of snow for the defendant company upon a train engaged in the business of removing snow from the track, was injured by the overturning of the car in which he rode, by reason of an unsuccessful attempt of the conductor to remove a snow bank from the track by means of the snow-plow alone, aided by the momentum of the train. Held, upon all the facts set out in the complaint, that a recovery by the plaintiff is precluded by the facts. that such overturning of his car was one of the perils of the business, which he assumed, and that the conductor and others, whose negligence is alleged, were fellow-servants in the same employment.

1. Building Contract.-A contract for the erection of a dwelling by T. for B. provides that T. shall complete it in all its parts "in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manne to the acceptance of W. D. architect ;" that if a dispute shall arise respecting the true construction of the drawings or specifications the same shall be finally decided by the architect, but if any dispute shall arise respecting the true value of any extra work or of work oinitted, "the same shall be valued" by arbitrators whose appointment is provided for; and that the work is to be executed “so as to fully carry out the design of said building as set fort. in the specifications or shown in the plans and according the true spirit, meaning, and intent thereof, and to the full satisfaction of W. D., aachitect, and to the satisfaction of the owner.' Held, that the last paragraph has no reference to the quality of the workmanship or materials, and as to these, in the absence of proof of fraud, mistake, or unfair dealing on the part of the architect, his acceptance of the work as satisfactory binds the owner.

2. In an action by the builder upon the contract the answer alleges that improper and inferior material was used by the plaintiff, and that if the architect "has expressed satisfaction with said work he has failed to disdischarge his duty as an architect, and has done so in fraud of the rights of defendant, and through some collusive management, as defendant is informed and believes, between himself and the plaintiff." On the trial defendant offered evidence to show that one of the floors was made of rotten flooring, and that much of the material defendant notified him and the architect that he (defendused was rotten, etc., and that before plaintiff quit work ant) was not satisfied with the work and material. Held, that it was error to reject this evidence, as it tended to show bad faith on the part of the architect in accepting the building; and such proof was admissible under the contract and answer.

LXVTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF OHIO.

SYNOPSIS OF LAWS PASSED THIS SESSION.

MARCH 16, 1882. S. B. 30. To authorize the Trustees of any township in Harrison county, to construct free turnpikes.

House Joint resolution No. 32. Requesting the President of the United States to pardon Serjeant Mason.

Senate Bill 116. To authorize the issue of bonds by cities having a population of not more than 12,258, and not less than 12,000, for market house and city hall purposes. MARCH 24, 1882.

House Bill 186. Amending sections 952 and 953 of the Revised Statutes prescribing rules for the governance of the board of Infirmary Directors of Hamilton County.

H. B. 57. Amending section 2873 of the Revised Statutes, for a more perfect description of town lots.

H. B. 434. To amend sections 1462 and 1463 of the Revised Statutes, empowering the trustees of townships to investigate and take action relating to the prevalence of small-pox or other infectious or loathsome disease.

H. B. 258. To authorize the Commissioners of Athens County, Ohio, to levy an additional tax.

H. B. 202. To authorize certain township trustees to dispose of burying ground and purchase other ground. H. B. 201. To authorize the village of East Liverpool to issue bonds for the defraying of expenses incurred by reason of the recent prevalence of small-pox..

H. B. 203. To authorize the village of East Liverpool, Columbiana County, to issue bonds for the purchasing and improving of grounds for a cemetery.

H. B. 309. To authorize the city council of the city of Galion, and the incorporated village of Kent, to borrow money, and to issue bonds therefor, for the purpose of providing water works.

H. B. 8. To authorize the Trustees of Silver Creek township, Green County, to transfer certain funds.

Senate Bill, 70. To authorize the township trustees of Kelly's Island township, Erie County, to assess a tax for sidewalk purposes.

S. B. -. To authorize the Commissioners of Monroe County, to settle certain claims, therein named.

S. B. 69. To divide Twin township, in Darke County, into two election precincts.

S. B. 88. An act to create two election precincts in Meigs township, Adams County.

H. B. 236. Authorizing the city of Galion to borrow money, and issue bonds therefor, to purchase grounds for a cemetery.

H. B. 296. To divide York township, Athens County, into election precincts.

MARCH 27, 1882. H. B. 435. To change the time for holding the second term of the Court of Common Pleas in the County of Coshocton, to April 25th, 1882, instead of April 4th, 1882, as fixed by the Judges.

H. B. 59. To amend an act, entitled an act to authorize the payment and transfer of bounty funds to aid in the erection of Soldier's Monuments etc. (77 O. L. page 127).

H. B. 94. To amend section 7082 of the Revised Statutes to read as follows:

Section 7082. Whoever adulterates, for the purpose of sale, any spirituous, alcoholic or malt liquors, used or intended for drink, or medical or mechanical purposes, with cocculus-indicus, vitrol, grains of paradise, opium, alum, capsicum, copperas, laurel-water, logwood, brazilwood, cochineal, sugar of lead, aloes, glucose, tannic acid, or any other substance which is poisonous or injurious to health, or with any substance not a necessary ingredient in the manufacture thereof; and whoever sells or offers for sale or keeps for sale, any such liquors so adulterated, shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned not less than twenty nor more than sixty days, or both, at the discretion of the court. And any person guilty of violating any of the provisions of this section, shall be adjudged to pay in addition to the penalties herein before provided for, all necessary costs and expenses

incurred in inspecting and analizing any such adulterated liquors, of which said party may have been guilty of adulterating, or selling or keeping for sale, or offering for sale.

H. B. 284. To amend section 2142 of the Revised Statutes to read as follows:

Section 2142. Any city or village having a board of health, or "the standing committee on health of any city or village council, who may do and perform all the duties of a board of health, as prescribed in this chapter," or a health officer, may establish a quarantine ground, or grounds, within or without its own limits, but if such place be without its limits, and within the limits of any other municipal corporation, the consent of the corporation, within the limits of which it is proposed to establish such quarantine shall be first obtained.

H. B. 254. To authorize the city council of the city of Lima to issue bonds to provide said city with water works.

MARCH 29, 1882.

H. B. 352. Amending an act enabling the commissioners of Montgomery and Warren counties to purchase toll-roads and convert the same into free roads.

H. B. 374. To authorize the village council of the in. corporated village of Medina, to issue bonds to build water works.

House Joint Resolution, 12. Relative to obtaining from the Federal Government, a training ship for Reform School boys.

H. B. 219. Making appropriations for defraying the expenses of the Ohio National Guard, while attending the obsequies of the late President Garfield, etc.

Senate Bill, 135. To authorize the trustees of Vienna township, Seneca County, to macadamize a certain road. S. B. 107. To authorize the council of the incorporated village of Defiance, to transfer certain funds.

S. B. 76. To amend sections 934, 944 and 946 of the Revised Statutes, relating to Childrens' Homes.

S. B. 59. To amend Section 4903 of the Revised Statutes to read as follows:

Section 3903. The board of education, except in cities of the first class, second grade, shall hold regular meetings once every two weeks. In cities of the first class, second grade, said board shall hold its meetings on the first and third Mondays of each month following the third Monday of April, and in all city districts of the first class, said board may hold such special meetings as it may deem necessary; it may fill all vacancies that occur in the board until the next annual election, and may make such rules and regulations, for its own government, as it may deem necessary, but such rules and regulations must be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the State.

H. B. 355. Authorizing the city of Dayton to issue Water Works and Fire Department bonds.

H. B. 343. Enacting section 1692 b, of the Revised Statutes as follows:

Section 1692 b. That all incorporated villages within this State, having within their limits a college or university, shall have the power to provide by ordinance against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors within the limits of the corporation.

H. B. 316. Authorizing the Commissioners of Paulding County to improve certain streams.

H. B. 154. To authorize the Commissioners of Cler mont County to construct certain free turnpike roads.

S. B. 122. Amending section one of an act passed April 18, 1881, authorizing the Commissioners of Erie County to issue bonds to build a jail.

H. B. 301. Making appropriations for the benevolent, penal and correctory institutions of the State.

APRIL 5, 1882.

H. B. 146. To authorize the commissiouers of Adams county to construct certain turnpike roads.

S. B. 78. Supplemental to an act passed February 17th, 1882, which authorized the commissioners of Pike county to pay certain bonds and coupons issued by said county.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

JANUARY TERM, 1882.

Hon. JOHN W. OKEY, Chief Justice; Hon. WILLIAM WHITE, Hon. W. W. JOHNSON, Hon. GEO. W. McILVAINE, Hon. NICHOLAS LONGWORTH, Judges.

Tuesday, April 11, 1882.

GENERAL DOCKET.

No. 69. Fayette Building and Loan Association v. George Dahl. Error to the District Court of Fayette County. Dismissed for want of preparation.

70. George Greis v. Francis Wagner, Treasurer of Seneca County. Error to the District Court of Seneca County. Judgment affirmed. There will be no further report.

157. Howes, Babcock & Co. v. Johnson & Beck. Error to the District Court of Washington County. Petition in error dismissed, cause being settled, as per agreement on file.

1076. Ohio ex rel., Attorney General v. Henry Heinmiller. Quo Warranto. Cause taken out of its order and set for oral argument April 19th, next.

MOTION DOCKET.

No. 54. Charles Stoddard v. The State of Ohio. Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the Court of Common Pleas of Ashland County. Motion granted.

55. James Clark v. Margaret Bruce. Motion to strike the printed record from the files on the ground that it is imperfect, material parts being omitted and statements of counsel substituted, also parts deemed by counsel material italicized throughout the record. Motion granted, and leave given to supply proper copies within sixty days.

56. Milton H. Miller v. J. T. Sullivan & Co. Motion for revivor in cause No. 1088, on the General Docket by plaintiff, and counter-motion by defendants to dismiss. Motion of plaintiff to revive overruled and countermotion of defendants sustained.

57. Margaret Nulter v. Elizabeth McKinney. Motion to dispense with printing record in cause No. 362, on the General Docket. Motion granted.

58. Henry P. Sabbert v. Antonius Zeivernik. Motion to dismiss cause No. 762, on the General Docket, for want of printed record. Motion granted.

59. Charlotte Miller, executrix &c. v. J. T. Sullivan & Co. Motion of plaintiff in error to take out of its order cause No. 1093, on the General Docket, and counter-motion of defendants in error to dismiss. Motion of plaintiff in error sustained, and counter-motion of defendants in error overruled.

60. Jacob Ridenour v. The State of Ohio. Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County. Motion granted.

SUPREME COURT RECORD.

[New cases filed since last report, up to April 11, 1882.].

No. 1092. S. Kuhn & Sons v. Oscar I. Frank. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. Jordan, Jordan & Williams and Follett, Hyman & Dawson for plaintiffs; Hoadley, Johnson & Colston for defendant.

1093. Charlotte F. Miller, Exr'x &c. v. J. T. Sullivan & Co. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. Hagans & Bradwell for plaintiff; H. C. Whitman for defendants.

1094. William A. Lowe v Union Central Life Insurance Co. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. D. Thew Wright for plaintiff; Ramsey, Matthews & Matthews for defendant.

1095. Isaac N. Topliff v. George H. Ely et al. ErrorReserved in the District Court of Lorain County. S. Burke and W. W. Boynton for plaintiff; E. G. Jolinson for defendants.

1096. George H. Ely et al. v. Isaac N. Topliff. ErrorReserved in the District Court of Lorain County. E. G. Johnson for plaintiffs; S. Burke and W. W. Boynton for defendant.

1097. John A. Topliff et al. v. Isaac N. Topliff. Error -Reserved in the District Court of Lorain County. E. G. Johnson for plaintiffs; S. Burke and W. W. Boynton for defendant.

1098. Rebecca Bantz v. Oliver C. Gates, Ex'r &c. Error to the District Court of Preble County. J. E. Freeman and Thomas Millikin for plaintiff; Foos & Fisher for defendant.

1099. Evaline C. Downing v. The Farmer's Insurance Co. Error to the District Court of Belmont County. D. D. T. Cowan and N. K. Kennon for plaintiff; Critchfield & Graham for defendant.

1100. Isaac Smith v. George W. Manahan. Error to the District Court of Huron County. F. P. Finefrock and Frank Sawyer for plaintiff; G. T. Stewart for defend

ant.

1101. Abraham Zimmerman v. David Zimmerman. Error to the District Court of Mahoning County. Van Hyning, Johnson & Wolf for plaintiff; Jones & Murray for defendant.

1102. Lydia Loudon, Admr'x &c. v. James Patterson, Adm'r &c. Error to the District Court of Columbiana County. Clarke & McVicker for plaintiff; Wallace & Billingsley for defendant.

1103. Mary L. Ryan et al. v. James W. O'Conner. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. Stallo, Kittridge & Shoemaker for plaintiff; Taft & Lloyd and O'Connor & Glidden for defendant.

1104. Thomas Stayner v. David Bower et al. Error to the District Court of Wyandot County. C. R. Mott for plaintiff.

1105. Sarah C. Mortan v. George Newhouse et al. Error to the District Court of Columbiana County. J. W. & H. Morrison and,J. T. Spence for plaintiff; O. Hume for defendants.

1106. Martha E. Burket v. Callius A. Weage. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. S. T. Crawford for plaintiff.

1107. Julius H. Neil v. W. E. Guerin. Error to the District Court of Franklin County. S. A. Nash for plaintiff.

1108. Jacob Albright v. Wm. Ford et al. Error to the District Court of Sandusky County. Bartlett & Finefrock for plaintiff; Lemmon, Finch & Lemmon for defendants.

1109. Lemuel McManness, Adm'r &c. v. Edwin Boutwell. Error to the District Court of Hancock County. Henry Brown for plaintiff; A. Blackford for defendant.

1110. Dennis McClurg, Adm'r &c. v. John Cole, Ex'r &c. Error to the District Court of Trumbull County. C. A. Harrington for plaintiff.

1111. Henry Ruffner v. Co-operative Land and Building Association No. 1. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. Stimmel & Davis for plaintiff; Paxton & Waariugton for defendant.

Ohio Law Journal.

COLUMBUS, OHIO, : : APRIL 20, 1882.

THE Supreme Court has in its hands for consideration, cases up to and including number 83, in regular order on the General Docket. This of course does not include numerous cases taken out of their regular order for hearing.

THE signs of the times indicate a nearer approach of the millenium than is generally hoped for.

A Judge has been found in Washington, D. C., who possessed the courage to pronounce the indictments against the Star Route thieves good, notwithstanding a few questions were raised and a few doubts existed which would have given a weak-kneed judge abundant room to dodge. Ingersoll, the thieves' counsel, has therefore, warned his clients to look to their insurance and fire proof appliances, as there may be a hell after all.

Another Judge has been found-in the Maryland Court of Appeals-who has exhibited an unusual degree of courage by granting an injunction to prevent the carrying on of the business of slaughtering, where it was a sore annoyance to honest and pure-air-living citizens. To be sure the authorities all justified the ruling, but judges don't always have the backbone to take a decided stand in such matters. In this

case (Woodyear v. Shaffer, 57 Md.), Judge Magruder declared-following precedent-that "slaughter houses are prima facie nuisances," and that "it is not necessary that a public nuisance is injurious to health; if there be smells, offensive to the senses, that is enough, as the neighborhood has a right to fresh and pure air." Numerous authorities are cited supporting this very common sense ruling. The case is of such value that we publish it in full in this issue.

Again, a New York paper has the following which is a decided innovation upon the belief that gas consumers have rights which gas companies are bound to respect:

"Judge Lawrence has continued the temporary injunction granted in the suit brought by Gen. Daniel E. Sickles against the Manhattan Gaslight Company to restrain the defendants from removing the meter or cutting off the supply of gas from Gen. Sickles' residence, at 14 Fifth avenue. Gen. Sickles asserted that unjust and improper bills for gas, for a time while he was abroad, were presented to him, and that

on his refusal to pay them in full, the company threatened to remove the meter. Judge Lawrence holds that the law of 1859, allowing gas companies to stop the supply of gas in case of non-payment of bills, has not made the gas company the sole judge of the question whether any, and if so, what amount of remuneration is due to it, or of the right of resort to the courts to ascertain the facts. He says:

"The bills rendered before the plaintiff's departure on January 28, 1881, show that at times he consumed between 116 and 135 cubic feet of gas per night, while the bill rendered on the 18th of February, covering a period of eleven days, shows a consumption of nearly 200 feet per night. I think that the inference strongly arises that the meter did not register correctly, and that the plaintiff, before submitting to the annoyance and vexation of having his gas cut off, is entitled to have the question tested as to the correctness of the bills presented to him. It is proper to state that everything appears to have been done which could have been done by the company to secure accuracy in the meter, but the fact remains that other parties occupying rooms in the same house received bills for gas indicated by other meters as having been consumed by those parties when they are confessedly absent from the city and the gas had been shut off. This evinence tends strongly to show that gas meters are not infallible. I am of opinion that when a disoute arises between the to have his rights investigated by the courts. company and the consumer, the latter is entitled This seems to me to be a case in which, if the plaintiff is right, it cannot be justly claimed that he can be fully compensated by an action for damages. The use of gas in the cities has become almost as great a necessity as the use of water, and an illegal deprivation of one or the other, particularly where such use is for ordinary domestic and family purposes, would cause, I think, such damages as to call for the interposition of a court of equity."

All these things point to the near approach of the millenial period.

SLAUGHTER-HOUSES AS NUISANCES.

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS.

WOODYEAR v. SCHAEFER.

Defendant maintained a slaughter-house from which he let flow blood and oftal into a stream, rendering the water impure and offensive. Others maintained slaughter-houses, breweries, etc., from which offensive matter was allowed to run into the same stream contributing to its pollution. Plaintiff was the owner of a flour mill on the same streain and the offensive matter ran into his mill dam and mill race. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining defendant from allowing blood, etc., from his slaughter-house to run into the stream and would be entitled to similar relief as to the others allowing offensive matters to run into the stream and that he might join all in one action.

Held, also, that the acts mentioned constituted a public nuisance for which there can be no prescription. Slaughter-houses are prima facie nuisances

Bill to obtain injunction to restrain a nuisance. From a decree denying the prayer of the bill complainant appealed. The opinion states the facts.

MAGRUDER, J.

The bill was filed by the appellant to obtain an injunction to restrain a nuisance.

The appellant has been since 1853 the owner and proprietor of a large flour mill in Baltimore city, on Gwynn's Falls, below its junction with. a small stream called Gwynn's Run. Before the the purchase of the mill he had operated it from about 1849, and a mill on that site had been operated for over fifty years.

The appellee (the defendant below) is a butcher, having a slaughter-house on Gwyl.n's Run in Baltimore County, about a mile above the mill.

The complaint is that the appellee for several years past, and up to the time of filing the bill, has emptied, and still continues to empty or allows to flow into the said run, the blood from slaughtered animals, and also continuously discharges from his slaughter-house into the run, the entrails and other offal from slaughtered animals, and that this blood and offal, naturally and necessarily by the flow of the stream, makes its way into the appellant's mill dam, and from that into the mill race, whereby the water in the race and its banks are mixed with and covered by said animal matter, causing and creating a nuisance, the said matter decomposing and creating an offensive smell, at times unbearable; the atmosphere filled with the stench is not only disagreeable and uncomfortable to health but it causes and tends to create disease; that this animal deposit becomes greater each year; that the run from the slaughter-house to the dam is little better than a cess pool; that as the deposit increases the stench increases; that until within two years the appellant and his hands and operatives only suffered inconvenience and discomfort, but now especially in the hot days of summer the stench has made most of the operatives sick, even making the hands so sick as to be unable to retain their food, compelling them at times to quit the premises, whereby the mill has to be stopped, and to obtain an atmosphere that can be even endured the flow of water to the mill has to be stopped and the contents of the dam emptied into the falls; that the operatives complain of the discomforts connected with their employment, and that unless the nuisance shall be abated it is only a question of time when the operations of the mill shall be compelled to cease; that the acts complained of are a nuisance, prejudice and lessen the value of the mill, and deprive the owner of the comfortable and reasonasonable enjoyment of it, and that he is without adequate remedy at law and can only have full relief in equity, and an injunction is prayed restraining the appellee, his agents and employees and servants from eaptying, depositing, discharging or allowing to flow into Gwynn's Run from his premises any blood, entrails or offal from slaughtered animals.

The answer does not deny the condition of the stream as charged, nor the effects produced thereby, but denies that any offensive matter is thrown in the stream by the appellee, that the only matter allowed to flow into the stream from his premises is beef's blood in quantities not exceeding fifteen buckets full upon an average per week, which blood cannot be seen or detected in the waters of said run over one hundred yards below the slaughter-house, and cannot cause any offensive deposit or otherwise create a nuisance or injure the appellant; that if any cause of complaint exists the appellant is himself responsible for it by danıming up the stream, which if allowed to flow unobstructed would be free from cause of complaint, and by allowing vegetable matter to accumulate and decompose in the dam and race, and by not using proper appliances to keep out offensive matter; that on Gwynn's Falls and the run there are a large number of slaughter-houses and other establishments which (some for over thirty years and nearly all for over twenty years) have used these streams as sewer-ways, and that the blood from all these slaughter-houses, and the refuse from breweries, soap and other factories, have flowed into these streams for all this time without complaint; and that there are cattle scales over and adjoining the run in which are kept large numbers of swine from which large quantities of filth and refuse matter are washed and thrown into the run and carried down with the current; and that the appellant's remedy is at law and not in equity; and that to grant him the relief prayed would be ruinous to a vast amount of property owned by butchers and others and destructive to one of the most important branches of trade in the State, besides working a most grievous wrong to the appellee.

A vast mass of testimony was taken, which although somewhat conflicting as to the point whether any solid matter was thrown from the appellee's premises into the stream, yet establishes the offensive condition of the water of the run, and in the mill dam and race, quite as fully as the bill charges, and shows the condition of the air at the mill to be at times so offensive as to be practicably unbearable, although at the same time showing other causes besides the slaughterhouse of the appellee for the existence of the nuisance, there being a large number of slaughterhouses on the falls and run besides breweries, soap and other factories, and the cattle scales with the occasional addition of dead animals and offal and other offensive matter from various

other sources. So that throwing out of consideration the fact of solid animal matter coming from the appellee's slaughter-house, which is shown to have been only an occasional occurrence, if it existed at all, as it probably has in a measure, judging from all the evidence, we are left to the blood which is proved to have flowed regularly from the slaughter-house of the appellee, though in comparatively moderate quantities, as the principal contribution of the appellee in common with a large number of others to