704
Tke Green Bag.
the contents of a sewer into an open stream above the well, and that the sewage from the stream percolated through gravelly soil into the well. The court regarded the connection between the act of the city in depositing the sewage into the stream, and the result charged as being altogether too remote and too uncertain to be permitted as a basis of recovery. There were no such connected facts as made a chain of causes so that the first could be called proximate to the end. In addition there was a very strong prob ability of the interposition of other entirely disconnected circumstances in producing the result—the death of the child. NEGLIGENCE. (PAVING STREETS—LEAVING WHEEL SCRAPER UNGUARDED — INJURY то CHILDREN PLAYING THEREON.) KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS.
Kelley v. Parker-Washington Co., 81 Southwestern Reporter 631, was an ac tion to recover damages for personal in juries. Defendant had a contract with a city to pave a street. During the progress of the work it left a wheel scraper on the street without fastening the lever so as to prevent the falling of the pan, and without guarding the scraper in any way. In consequence of this, plaintiff, a child, was injured while play ing on the scraper. It was contended that defendant was not liable as plaintiff was a mere trespasser. The court notes cases in which it has been held that an owner of premises owes no duty to trespassers except of not wantonly or recklessly injuring them after having discovered them to be in peril; and then says: "But it has also been held that: 'It is negligence on the part of a rail road company to omit to secure its turn tables so that children cannot revolve them. If a child is injured in consequence of such omission, the company will be liable,' etc. Nagel v. Railway Co., 75 Missouri 653. 42 American Reports 418. And while the rule that 'the owner of property is under no obli gation to keep it in a condition which will insure the safety of persons who go upon it without license or invitation, yet an excep
tion to the above rule exists where the owner permits upon his premises dangerous ma chinery or other dangerous things likely to attract children, and does not place guards around the same so as to prevent injury to such children.' Schmidt v. Distilling Co., 90 Missouri 284, i Southwestern Reporter 865, 2 Southwestern Reporter 417, 59 American Reports 16. The distinction seems to be thai it is negligence for the owner to permit on his premises dangerous machinery in a con dition likely to cause injury. The case at bar falls under the latter rule; and, besides, it has another element to distinguish it from the cases first cited, in that the plaintiff was not a trespasser. It is true, the defendant was in possession of the street making the improve ments, but it was not an exclusive possession as to persons whose business or inclinations might induce them to be there, and while their presence did not interfere with the work." PEDDLERS. (LICENSE — FARMERS SELLING THEIR OWN PRODUCE.) SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA.
State v. Jensen, 100 Northwestern Re porter 644, involved the construction of an ordinance of the city of Minneapolis, which provides that no person shall "exercise the vocation" of a wagon peddler within the city without paying a yearly license of one hun dred and twenty-five dollars. It was con tended that a farmer selling his own produce at retail was not a peddler within the mean ing of this ordinance, and was therefore not required to pay the prescribed license. There are decisions of other courts which hold that a farmer or gardener, who, as an incident to his business, sells the product of his farm or garden at retail from door to door, should not be regarded as a peddler. At the first blush, this seems to be sound and just, be cause the so selling of such products is not in and of itself a harmful business, but, on the contrary, mutually beneficial to both seller and purchaser, and a matter of con venience in the smaller towns of the State. Rut the fact that the articles sold from house
