476, the Court held that ua flag-staff placed in a
NOTES OF CASES.
public street is per se a nuisance," because it is an obstruction to the use of the entire area of the street. It does not appear what the politics of the pole were, nor that it had any, but the city officers were held justified in removing it as an obstruction to the street. Why this judicial prejudice against liberty poles, when all the city streets are so encumbered and rendered unsightly by wire-bearing poles in the interests of greedy corporations who ought to bury their wires? The Kansas Court have held that a stone post at a street-corner to protect a shade-tree is not necessarily a nuisance, although partly concealed by grass and weeds. (City of Wellington v. Gregson, 31 Kan. 99; 47 Am. Rep. 482.) If such tenderness is in dulged toward a mere natural tree, how much more should the courts foster and protect the tree that bears the symbol of our liberty and power! The American Flag — "Old Glory" — cannot and never shall be buried. " Forever float that standard sheet!" vide Fitz Greene Halleck and Daniel Webster.
Warning to Infant Employees. — It is a familiar principle of the law of master and servant, that a ser vant of mature years and judgment takes upon him self the risk of obvious dangers in the employment. An exception is generally made to this rule, in sub stance as follows : — "If the employment is dangerous beyond what manifestly appears, or if the servant is not of suf ficient age or discretion to understand the manifest risks, it is the master's duty to notify him of the dan ger; and in the case of an inexperienced person the master is bound to instruct him how to avoid the dan ger." (Browne on Domestic Relations, page 128.) Some apparent conflict has arisen in the courts as to the duty of an employer to point out obvious dangers to an infant employee. Much of course depends upon the age and intelligence of the infant, and fourteen years seems to be the age at which, by some of the courts, the infant is deemed to be suijuris in this respect. Some cases however hold a stricter rule. Thus in Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 94 Ga. 107, it was held that there is no legal presumption that a minor above fourteen needs no warning or instruction. In Dowlingz'. Allen, 74 Mo. 13; 41 Am. Rep. 298, it was held that an inexperienced boy of seventeen, put to work on visibly dangerous machinery, was entitled to warning of the danger from the employer. The Court cited Grizzle v. Frost, 3 Fost. & F.622, where the in fant was a girl of sixteen; and Coombs v. New B. Cord age Co.,102 Mass. 572; 3 Am. Rep. 506, where the boy was fourteen, and the machinery was unguarded gear ing in plain view. This is also the doctrine of Sulli van v. India Manuf. Co., 114 Mass. 396, where the child was fourteen. There the Court said : —
A Funny Misprint. — A very amusing typograph ical error may be found in sec. 943 of Bliss's edition of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, edition of 1883, where "United States" is printed, "Untied States." If this had occurred twenty years earlier it might have been the work of a Confederate printer. As it stands, it may take rank with that famous mis print which has rendered one edition of the Bible famous, by which the Commandment is rendered, "Thou shalt commit adultery."
"Law Book News."— This periodical comes back on the Chairman in a very mild way, in its December number, in respect to Mr. Beach's numer ous law-book progeny. We might retort, but we forbear, because the " News " would have no oppor tunity to reply. The December number is its last. It will be sincerely regretted by many that its publi cations is discontinued. It has had a very honor able and useful, although short, career. Its plan was unique and admirably executed. Its editorials were always keen and interesting. Although issued in the particular interest of one great publishing house, its criticism and judgments were uniformly candid and impartial, and it gave due notice of all legal publications during its time. The Chairman will greatly miss it, for he found it much pleasanter reading than the " Reporters." But after all, this discontinuance is the fault of the publishers them selves, for they have done much to make the legal profession care for nothing but " the last case."
"It may frequently happen that the dangers of a particular position for a mode of doing work are great, and apparent to persons of capacity and knowledge of the subject, and yet a party, from youth, inexperience or ignorance, or gen eral want of capacity, may fail to appreciate them. It would be a breach on the part of a master to expose a ser vant of this character, even with his own consent, to such dangers, unless with instructions or cautions sufficient to enable him to comprehend them, and to do his work safely, with proper care on his own part." So in O'Connor v. Adams, 120 Mass. 427 (boy of 20). The same was held, in the case of a boy of 16, in Hill v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45, citing a long list of cases, and in Railroad Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 554, when the boy was 16, the Court observing : "It was a wrongful act on the part of Collett to order a boy of his age and inexperience to do a thing, which in its very nature was perilous, and which any man of ordinary sagacity would know to be so." This doctrine is strongly im plied in Larson v. Berquist, 34 Kans. 334; 55 Am. Rep. 249 (the menses case), and is recognized in New
