ELECTRICAL CASES (CITED AM ELECTL. CAS.) BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE IMPORTANT CASES (EXCEPT- THE TELEGRAPH, THE TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC WITH ANNOTATIONS EDITED BY WILLIAM W. MORRILL, Author of "Competency and Privilege of Witnesses," "City Negligence," etc. VOLUME III. 1889-1892. ALBANY, N. Y. MATTHEW BENDER, LAW PUBLISHER, Entered according to act of Congress, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-Ave, BY MATTHEW BENDER, In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 1. 2679 DEC 1 6 1930 PLATED AND PRINTED BY WILLIAM BOYD, ALBANY, N. Y. PREFACE. There would seem to be scarcely any excuse for writing a preface to this volume, unless it be to invite attention to the rapid increase of adjudications within the scope of the series, and the broadening of its field due to increasing uses of electricity. This may be fairly illustrated by some comparison of the present with the last preceding volume, since they cover recent and not far from equal periods. Of the 130 cases in Vol. 2, 69 are "telegraph cases," that is, those pertaining to the duties and liabilities of telegraph companies as public carriers of news; while of the 110 cases in this volume, but 42 are of that class. This is not on account of the decrease of such litigation, which in some localities seems rather to constantly increase, but because it has been found necessary to abridge many of those cases and place them in notes. The subject of interference of electrical currents, usually made prominent in actions brought by telephone companies whose weaker currents and delicate apparatus are unfavorably affected by the powerful currents required by light and power companies, is represented by two cases in Vol. 2, and by ten cases in this volume. The rights of abutting owners, as affected by the maintenance in highways of apparatus required by users of electricity, were considered in six cases in Vol. 2; while in this volume there are eighteen upon that subject. This is doubtless due largely to the fact that so long as only telegraph lines existed, employing few poles and wires, and in no other way using the highways, owners of adjacent land did not feel the burden; but the multiplication of wires and posts, and particularly the use of streets by electric railways, have aroused the land owners to the necessity of testing their rights. Leaving out of consideration "telegraph cases,” as above defined, telegraph companies were concerned in sixteen cases in this volume, electric light companies in eighteen, telephone companies in twenty, and electric railway companies in twenty-five, or nearly one-fourth of the whole number in the volume; a surprising proportion, considering how recent was the general use of the electric railway at the time when these cases arose. The last two opinions reported in this volume relate to an application of electricity, which, while not commercial, is intensely practical, to wit, the infliction by that agency of the death penalty for capital offences, now required by statute in the State of New York. The constitutionality of the law was zealously attacked, and it is thought the decisions of that question by the Court of Appeals of New York and the United States Supreme Court may be appropriate here. A word of explanation as to the plan of reporting may be proper. It is the aim to print every opinion (or the portion of it appropriate to this series), exactly as it was delivered, citations and all, without addition or excision. Therefore, if in the official report (or, if such has not been found, in the volume from which the case is copied, which is always named at the head) a case is cited from one set of unofficial reports, or journal, and no reference made to others in which it may also have been printed, it should be understood that the selection is that of the writer of the opinion (or possibly of the reporter) and not of the editor of this series. So far is this plan of literal copying followed that where the case cited is to be found in this series, that fact is indicated merely by printing its title in full-face type, the reference being inserted at the end of the head-note. Thanks are returned for continued assistance from gentlemen whose names have already been mentioned, as well as valuable suggestions and help from others; all tending to show active and increasing interest in the success of the enterprise. Chase v. W. U. Tel. Co American Bell Teleph. Co., People v Attorney-General v. W. U. Tel. Co..... Board of Aldermen of Boston, Suburban L. & P. Co. v Brashears v. W. U. Tel. Co... Brush Electric Illum. Co. v. Consol. Tel. & Elec. Subway Co Burnett v. W. U. Tl. Co.... Cahn v. W. U. Tel. Co..... Central N. J. Teleph. Co., State, Duke Pros. v...... Chesapeake & Pot. Teleph. Co. v. Mackenzie ... Cincinnati Inclined Ry. Co. v. City & Sub. Tel. Asn.. ..... City of Newton, Thomson-Houston Elec. Light Co. v.. 507 52 City of Richmond.. 556 City & Suburban Tel. Asn., Cincinnati Inclined Ry. Co. v.. 443 665 Commonwealth v. Charles Smith 13 66 ▼. Westchester 326 Crawson v. W. U. Tel. Co.... Cornell v. Detroit Electric Railway Co Congress Spring Co., Consumers' Gas & Elec. Light Co. v. Craig Street Ry. Co., Lockhart v. 211 150 211 618 486 814 820 |