text:
Robbins v. Chicago City/Opinion of the Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

This was an action on the case brought by the city of Chicago against Robbins. The declaration alleged that the city had by law exclusive control over the public streets and was bound to protect them from encroachment and injury. That Robbins owned a lot on the corner of Wells and Water Streets, and wrongfully dug, opened, and made an area in the sidewalk adjoining, and left it so unguarded that one Woodbury fell into it and was severely injured; that Woodbury had recovered, for his injuries, $15,000 damages against the city, which sum the city had paid, and which, though the city had been primarily liable for it, Robbins was bound to refund. Plea, the general issue.

Robbins owning an unimproved lot, at the southeast corner of Wells and Water Streets, in Chicago, contracted, in February, 1856, with one Button to build a storehouse on it; Button's principal work being the masonry, and there being seven different contractors on the building in all, on different parts of it. The whole was under charge of an architect appointed by Robbins, the duty of which person was to see that the work was done according to contract.

The city had, in 1855, ordered the grade of Wells Street to be raised about seven feet and the carriage-way to be filled with earth. This improvement-as Robbins wished to have vaults to his new store-rendered necessary a curb-wall from the natural surface of the ground to the height of the grade. By its position-about sixteen feet from the building-this wall would give, so far as the space beside it was covered over (an extent of about eleven feet), a vault for storage, and where open-as five feet would be left by another or area-wall-an area immediately adjoining the edifice, by means of which light and air would be given to it. Encroachments on the street to the width of five feet were apparently allowable by the city ordinance.

In making this area there was some excavation or digging away of the natural soil, but the testimony of Button tended to show that what earth was thus removed was replaced by sand and other material used in flooring the space, and that the principal space was procured by the raising of the street and the erection of the wall and the edifice beside it. The depth of the space was seven or eight feet.

By his contract, Button was to be liable for any violation of the city ordinances in obstructing the sidewalks or for accidents arising therefrom; but there was no specific provision that he or any other contractor should provide proper lights or guards. There were lamps at a bridge not very far off, and one at an alley sixty-four feet from the area.

Possession of the ground was given to Button on the 1st of April, 1856, and the excavation and walls making the space were in effect raised some time during the spring; the city about the same time filling the carriage-way with earth.

Button, by the terms of his contract, was to finish his work by the 1st September, 1856, but he did not in fact complete it till February, 1857. However, the sidewalk-eleven feet-which was made by broad flagging stones placed over the two walls, was finished in the autumn; the area, which was intended to be covered with iron grating, and which when so covered would have been thrown, in a manner, into the sidewalk, not being as yet so covered.

In all respects, however, except this protection of grating to passers by, the area, it seemed, was substantially finished and ready to be covered by grating before the 19th of December. With the grating Button had nothing to do; that being a matter, with the rest of the iron-work of the building, contracted for by another person.

From the time that the area was made until the grating was put there, it was covered, as the whole space, before the sidewalk was completed, by laying flagging, had been, more or less by joists, the covering being sometimes very slight, and the area-which ran along the whole side of the building, one hundred and fifty feet-sometimes wholly uncovered.

Robbins was in Chicago, and during the summer and early autumn occasionally at the building. Later in the season, when ice was on the sidewalk, the city superintendent spoke to him about the dangerous condition of the area; suggested a mode in which, at a small cost, it could be made safe; telling him, at the same time, that if it happened any time to be sleety, and people should be passing by his building rapidly, and the covering was not attended to, smoebody would be hurt-'a neck or a leg broke'-and the city have damages to pay.

To this Robbins replied, that it was 'more the contractor's business than his,' or was 'wholly the contractor's business,' but that he would speak to him. Previously to this the chief clerk of the superintendent's office, by direction of the superintendent, had written to Robbins, giving him notice of the dangerous condition of the place; and the clerk and superintendent, who were often in that neighborhood, and were struck with this condition, had, themselves, once or oftener, covered it with plank. The contractor was told about it also, and he spoke several times to his foreman on the subject.

On Sunday evening, December 28th, 1856, the night being stormy, Woodbury, who was passing the place, and in walking had to face the storm, fell down the area, which had been left or had become uncovered from Saturday night, and was severely hurt. He soon after brought suit against the city for damages.

The city attorney, Mr. Marsh, whose duty it was to defend the suit, now applied to Robbins to assist him in procuring testimony. Robbins told him of one Livingston, who had boarded at the same place with Woodbury at the time of the accident, whose idea was that Woodbury's injuries were not so great as he pretended, and who would therefore be a good witness for the city. Robbins promised to write to him, and afterwards informed Marsh that he had done so. The day of the trial or the day before it, Marsh, casually meeting Robbins at the foot of the stairway of the court-house, remarked to him that the suit was about to be tried, or was coming on; but he did not tell him in what court the suit was, nor did he ever give Robbins any notice that the city would look to him for indemnity for what it might have to pay Woodbury; he 'never having talked with Robbins in reference to the case with any such idea as that,' the only object being to prepare the defence. Marsh did not state to Robbins that be was the city attorney, but the parties were long and intimately acquainted with each other, meeting almost daily, and Marsh presumed as of course, that Robbins knew that fact.

Woodbury recovered in his suit $15,000 damages, which the city paid.

A provision of the city charter in force at the time when Robbins built his area, declared that

'All owners in front of whose premises the common council should direct sidewalks to be constructed, should make such sidewalks at their own cost, and if not so made, that the council might make them and assess the cost against the premises.'

The controversy had already been before this tribunal, when a judgment in favor of Robbins had been reversed.

The court below now charged the jury, in substance, as follows:

'The law is, that although the city is primarily liable for an injury suffered by reason of the dangerous condition of the streets and sidewalks, yet the corporation has a remedy over against the party that is in fault, and has so used the streets and sidewalks as to produce the injury.

'The question, then, is, whether Robbins is answerable to the city for the judgment recovered by Woodbury.

'If it was through the fault of Robbins that Woodbury was injured, he is concluded by the judgment recovered against the city, if he knew that the suit was pending and could have defended it.

'It is not necessary that the city should have given him an express notice to defend the suit, nor is it necessary that the city should have notified him that it would look to him for indemnity. If Marsh, the attorney for the city, told him of the pendency of the suit, what it was for; told him of the day of the trial, and talked to him about the testimony of a witness, he is as much chargeable with notice as if he had been directly told that he could contest Woodbury's right to recover, and that the city would look to him for indemnity.

'It is not requisite that Marsh should have informed him that he was city attorney. If Robbins knew the fact, he did not need to be informed of it.

'It is urged that Robbins was not informed by March, in what particular court the action was pending. This was not necessary. When Robbins was told that Woodbury had sued the city for falling into an area which he had built, then it was his duty to have ascertained in what particular court the action was to be tried.

'Was it through the fault of Robbins that the accident to Woodbury happened? The building was commenced in the spring of 1856. The grade of Wells Street had been ordered to be raised by the city, but was not actually raised until the summer of 1856. There is testimony tending to show that when Robbins removed the old sidewalk, which was on the natural surface of the ground, he removed very little earth in order to make this area. There is also testimony tending to show that what earth he did remove was replaced by sand and other materials, and it is contended that although he might be liable if there were proper allegations in the declaration, yet he is not liable in this suit, because the declaration says that he wrongfully and unjustly dug a large hold or pit, and the digging, if any was done, did not contribute to produce the injury. But if the declaration charges him with digging a large hole or pit, it also charges him with opening and making one, and in the opinion of the court it is immaterial whether the area was made by excavating the earth as stated by some of the witnesses, or in the manner mentioned by Mr. Button, the contractor. Robbins was not in fault in making the area so as to conform to the grade of the city, and the city was not in fault in permitting him to build it. Robbins had the implied license of the city to build the area, but no license can be presumed from the city to leave the area open and unguarded.

'The fact that Robbins was building the area at the same time that the city was grading the street does not excuse him or show that the city was in any degree delinquent. Robbins impliedly agreed with the city that if he were permitted to build the area for his own benefit, he would do it in such a manner as to save the public from danger, and the city from harm. The gravamen of the offence is not that Robbins was engaged in an unlawful work when he made the area, but that he left uncovered and unprotected an area which was dangerous, and which, if left without guards to warn those who passed by, became a nuisance; what was originally lawful thereby became unlawful. The city cannot be held under any obligation to supervise the building of an area like this, under the circumstances detailed in the evidence.

'If the jury believe that this area was built under the direction of Robbins and for his benefit, and that it was left unprotected, and that Woodbury, while passing along the street, fell into it and was injured, then the jury will find the amount Woodbury recovered against the city, with interest.'

To so much of the charge as related to the notice to Robbins of the pendency of the suit of Woodbury against the city, and 'to so much of the charge as related to the construction of the area,' the defendant excepted.

Messrs. Kales and Beckwith, for the plaintiff in error:

I. There was error in the instructions as to the obligation of Robbins to defend. The law on the subject of the conclusiveness on another party of a judgment like that given against the city is this:

Where there is no request, and where the facts are only partially communicated, it depends upon the circumstances under which the communication is made whether the party is charged with attending to the defence. If the circumstances were such that a prudent man might be reasonably expected to act upon them, then the partial communication may be considered as notice. But if from the facts communicated, and from the circumstances under which they were communicated, a prudent man would not be expected to act upon them, then the communication ought not to be deemed notice; and this is more especially true when neither the party making the communication, nor the party receiving it, had any idea that the latter was in any manner to act by reason of what was said.

Here there was no notice. If should have been submitted to the jury, whether the facts communicated-considering the circumstances under which the communication was made-were such as would have caused a prudent man to act.

II. The charge was erroneous in respect to the construction of the area.

The city had ordered the carriage-way of the street to be raised and filled to the new grade, and paved, and had compelled Robbins to put up his building with reference to the new grade. This improvement, as it progressed to completion, left the surface of the old sidewalks at this point far below the rest of the street, thus causing a deep, vacant space or pit around Robbins' building, on both streets. There was really no excavation. The allegation of the declaration that Robbins dug, opened, and made an area, is not sustained by the proof.

But, independently of this point of pleading, the city had itself created a public necessity for what Robbins did. As the raising of the carriage-way part of the street-an improvement lawfully undertaken by the city-would, if nothing else were done, render the rest of the street occupied by the sidewalks impassable, it became the duty of the city of cause the sidewalks to be rebuilt. To perform this duty it was necessary for the city officers, in the first instance, to order Robbins to build them, and in case he omitted to do so, then to build them themselves, and charge him or his lot with the expense. The erection of a curb wall necessarily preceded the filling and paving of the carriage-ways. Robbins, in planning the improvement of his lot, knew this, and contracted for the erection of a curb wall and sidewalk in connection with the erection of his building. He had the right to expect the city officers would order him to construct them as soon as the city's duty to the public required the order to be made. The erection of the curb wall was required as part of the sidewalk, and it will be presumed that the city officers gave the proper order to Robbins to proceed with the work. The duty of the city to cause the sidewalk to be built was absolute, though the obligation of the mere act of building it rested upon Robbins.

Under these circumstances-and the public having a right to require the city to cause it to be done at the time it was performed-the work was primarily for the public benefit.

III. When the case was here before, it appeared that Robbins had entered into the street by but an implied license, and the fact was regarded as important in the decision then made; one against Robbins. It appears, now, that he entered by express authority of a statute. The case is therefore a new one.

The question then is, did Robbins perform his whole duty when, under such circumstances, he let out to skilful and independent contractors the execution of this work, to be done in conformity with the plan ordained; especially as the result, when the work was completed, conformed to what he was authorized to do? The following cases are decisive, to show that he did: Gray v. Pullen (Q. B., 1863), Law Journal Reports, N. S., vol. 32, p. 169; Blake v. Ferris (1 Selden, 48); Painter v. Pittsburgh (46 Pennsylvania State, 213); Pack v. Mayor (4 Selden, 222); Kelley v. Mayor (1 Kernan, 432); Overton v. Freeman (73 English Common Law, 867); Allen v. Hayward (7 Adolphus & Ellis, N. S., 960).

In each case above cited the party on whom the right to do the work was conferred let out the execution of it to independent contractors; injury was occasioned to others, who were without fault, by the negligent and improper manner in which the execution of the work was conducted or left during the progress of it, by the contractors' servants; the suits were against the employers, and they were held not to be liable for the negligence of the contractors or their servants.

The ground of decision is stated in Gray v. Pullen, where Cockburn, C. J., announces it as 'common doctrine, that if a person in the exercise of his rights as a private individual, or of those conferred on him by statute, employs a contractor to do work, and the latter is guilty of negligence in doing it, the contractor and not the employer is liable.'

In the construction of a public improvement, pursuant to a statutory right, it is as much a part of the right to intrust the execution of the work to skilful and careful contractors, as it is a part of one's individual right, in making an improvement on his own land, to let the work in that manner. On this subject the court, in Blake v. Ferris, say with force:

'The impracticability and injustice of holding the express licensees who had let the work to be liable for the contractor's negligence, in leaving the hole in the street uncovered over night, may be further illustrated by the common case of a man about to build a house for himself. He may, if he please, manage the whole, give directions, &c., &c., which his men would be bound to follow; and thus make himself the master in fact of all the persons employed; but, as Baron Parke said about the butcher driving the ox, 'he is not bound to do so, and he may not know how to do it.' He may therefore let out by contract the building of the house to some person who will undertake to do it. Would he thereby become liable for all injuries to third persons for negligence or misconduct in doing an act tending to the construction of the house? For instance, by the carpenter's men, in getting out timber in the forest; by the stonecutter's servants, in blasting stone in the quarry; or by the teamsters, in handling materials; such consequences would, indeed, shock the common sense of all men.'

Few persons possess the skill to build a house. A particular class of persons must, to a greater or less degree, be intrusted with the execution of such a work. And the more completely the execution of it, and the manner of doing it, are placed by the employer in the hands of skilful and independent contractors, the more fully has he performed his duty to the public. He has thereby substituted the skilful management and independent control of another over the work, pending its execution, in the place of his own probable want of skill to direct.

Where a person enters under an implied license to do work for his own exclusive benefit, which appeared to be the fact in this controversy when the case was here before, it is a condition of such license that nothing shall be done under it to the injury of the licensor. But when the right springs from an express permission, or from statutory authority, no conditions are attached but those expressed; and the obligation is different.

In this case is was pending the execution of the work, and while the work was in the exclusive control of the contractors and their servants, and while Robbins had no power or authority to remove the contractors' servants from the work, that the accident to Woodbury occurred. The omission to cover the opening properly, on Sunday night, was never directed by Robbins, but was the wrongful act of the contractors' servants.

The court is bound to presume that the plan of the sidewalk, authorized by the common council, could be carefully executed without the necessity of such a negligent omission; and Robbins had the right, as against the city, which had forced the plan upon him, to suppose the same thing.

Under these circumstances, if the contractor, while invested with the control of the work, unnecessarily committed a nuisance, Robbins is not liable therefor, or for the consequences.

I. The instruction as to Robbins's obligation to defend. Robbins was a business man, as the case shows; and no notice, whether oral or written, could have given him any more information about the suit, or about his rights and duties in the premises, than he possessed when informed of the commencement of the suit, of its nature, and the claim made by Woodbury, and of the trial of the case. Under such circumstances Robbins cannot go back of Woodbury's judgment and try the case all over.

In Blaisdale v. Babcock, all the notice that ever was given was simply a notice that a suit had been commenced; and yet, Chancellor Kent, at that time Chief Justice, held the judgment conclusive.

In the Leading Cases in Equity, Le Neve v. Le Neve, it is said:

'It is not necessary in any case, to constitute notice, that it should be in the shape of a distinct and formal communication, and it will be implied in all cases, where a party is shown to have had such means of informing himself as to justify the conclusion that he might and ought to have availed himself of them.'

Again, in speaking of notice to purchasers of property:

'It should be remembered that a purchaser will have notice whenever he has the means of knowledge, although he may choose not to know; or, in other words, whenever it may fairly be presumed that he either knew or remained wilfully ignorant.'

Why does not the rule apply to this case? Is there any peculiar and extenuating circumstances presented to the court why Robbins should not be held to it?

II. The point made below as to the difference between the proofs and the averment of the declaration is scarcely pressed here.

It is argued, however, that Robbins was compelled to relay his sidewalk, and that the plan of doing the work had been forced upon him. The argument is that it was a necessary work put on him by the city.

But the city never forced any plan whatever upon him. They never designed his sidewalk, his area, or his vaults. They never told him how or when to build them, and said nothing to him on that subject whatever. He formed his own plans, began when he got ready, used his own materials, and all that can be said about the matter with any aspect of fairness is, that the city permitted him to build up his building, using a portion of the sidewalk as an appurtenant to his building, in order to accommodate him, and nobody else. But this very fact made it his duty to see that he kept his vaults covered up, and his premises safe and secure. This was what he undertook, and what the city warned him, both verbally and in writing, to do.

III. The question in regard to contractors is out of this case, because—

1. The contracts had expired before the accident, and the presumption of law is that Robbins was doing the work himself by employing his own workmen.

2. Robbins had an architect to superintend the work all the time, and to see that the work was done according to contract.

The doctrine pertaining to contractors cannot, for other reasons, apply.

In Ellis v. The Sheffield Gas Consumers, when the argument in regard to contractors was addressed to Lord Campbell, he said, 'It would be monstrous if the party causing another to do the thing were exempted from liability merely because there was a contract between him and the person immediately causing the act to be done.'

IV. The charge, in view of the facts of the case, is perfect and right. It condenses the entire evidence. The only exceptions which were taken to it are, first, to the sufficiency of the notice of the city to Robbins; and second, 'to the construction of the area.' The particular errors complained of are not set out, and we ought not to be made to argue in regard to matters so indefinitely put that it requires a statement at bar to show what they mean.

V. But none of these questions ought to have been argued by us. Every point raised in this case was adjudged when the case was here before, as will be seen by reference to the report. There is no essential difference between the case as now coming up and as it was then presented. And, after the language of this court, at the last term, in Minnesota Co. v. National Co., every question should be regarded as closed.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

Municipal corporations having the care and control of the public streets within their limits are obliged by the laws of the State of Illinois to keep the same in good repair 'for the passage of persons and property,' and in case of neglect any person receiving injury in consequence of any obstruction or defect may have an action on the case to recover compensation for such injuries. Statutes to that effect exist in most of the States, but the principle is now well settled that in all cases where it appears that the obstruction or defect which occasioned the injury was caused, constructed, or created by a third person, the corporation, if it was without their concurrence, may have a remedy over against the party immediately in fault.

Severe injuries were received by one William H. Woodbury, on the twenty-eighth day of December, 1856, while passing over Wells Street, within the limits of the plaintiff corporation. He used the corporation in the State court to recover compensation for the injuries so received. Declaration alleged that the defendant in this suit was the owner of a building lot fronting on that street; that in making improvements thereon he wrongfully excavated an area in the sidewalk in front of his lot, and adjoining the same, of great length, width, and depth, and wrongfully suffered it to remain uncovered and unguarded, so that the injured party, while passing over the sidewalk during the night of that day, and while in the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, fell into the excavation and was greatly injured. Parties went to trial in that suit at the June Term of the court in 1857, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of Fifteen thousand dollars damages and costs of suit, which the corporation was compelled to pay.

Present suit was an action on the case to recover of the defendant, as the party who constructed, caused, or created the obstruction or defect in the street, the amount of that judgment and the expenses of the litigation. Gravamen of the charge in the declaration was that the defendant made the excavation and negligently left it open and unguarded, and that the injury to the plaintiff in the suit against the corporation was caused by that obstruction or defect, and that the defendant by reason of the premises became and was answerable over to the plaintiffs in this suit for the amount of that judgment, and for their reasonable expenses in defending the action. Plea was the general issue, and the verdict and judgment at the first trial were for the defendant. Corporation plaintiffs removed the cause into this court by writ of error, and the judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Pursuant to the mandate of this court, a new venire was issued, and the verdict and judgment at the second trial were for the plaintiffs, and the defendant excepted and sued out this writ of error.

Errors alleged at the trial, as stated in the bill of exceptions, have respect to so much of the charge of the court as relates to the notice to the defendant of the pendency of the suit in which the injured party recovered judgment against the corporation, and also to so much of the charge of the court as relates to the construction of the area described in the declaration. Exceptions were also proposed to one of the rulings of the court in excluding certain testimony, but the objection appears to have been waived, as it was not made the subject of any consideration in the argument.

I. Charge of the court in respect to the notice to the defendant of the pendency of the suit against the corporation, presents the first question for decision. Preliminary to that part of the charge which is the subject of complaint, the court remarked that although municipal corporations were primarily liable for injuries occasioned by obstructions or defects in their streets or sidewalks, they yet might have a remedy over against the party who was in fault, and who had so used the street or sidewalk as to produce the injury. Instruction was then given to the effect that if the defendant knew that the suit was pending and could have defended it, and it was through his fault that the party was injured, he was concluded by the judgment recovered against the corporation. Express notice, said the presiding justice, was not required, nor was it necessary that the officers of the corporation should have notified him that they would look to him for indemnity. Just exception certainly cannot be taken to those instructions, as they are in precise accordance with what this court decided in this case when it was before the court on the former occasion. Same principle was adopted and applied in the case of Lovejoy v. Murray, in which the leading authorities upon the subject were collated and examined. Conclusive effect of judgments respecting the same cause of action and between the same parties rests upon the just and expedient axiom, that it is for the interest of the community that a limit should be opposed to the continuance of litigation, and that the same cause of action should not be brought twice to a final determination.

Parties in that connection include all who are directly interested in the subject-matter, and who had a right to make defence, control the proceedings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from the judgment. Persons not having those rights substantially are regarded as strangers to the cause, but all who are directly interested in the suit and have knowledge of its pendency, and who refuse or neglect to appear and avail themselves of those rights, are equally concluded by the proceedings.

Evidence in the record shows that the defendant knew that the party was injured by falling into the excavation, and that the action against the corporation was commenced, that he was informed of the day of trial, that he was requested to assist in procuring testimony, and that he actually wrote to a witness upon the subject. Testimony of the attorney of the corporation shows that he called upon the defendant, soon after the suit was commenced, for the purpose of finding out whether he, the defendant, knew anything about the case which would be for the benefit of the corporation in preparing the defence, and made inquiries of him to that effect. Responsive to those inquiries the defendant mentioned the name of a person who was boarding at the same place with the injured party, and whose testimony he, the defendant, supposed would be of benefit to the corporation. His idea was that the injuries of the party were not as great as he pretended, and for that reason the defendant suggested that the person named would be a good witness for the defence, and he agreed to write and get an exact statement of what he would testify if called and examined.

Inquiry was made of the witness if he told the defendant that he was the attorney of the corporation, and he answered that he was not able to say; but he further testified that he had long known the defendant, and that they were intimate acquaintances. Same witness testified that on the day of the trial of that case, or the day before, he met the defendant in the court-house, at the foot of the stairs, and told him that the case was about to be tried.

Surely it cannot be doubted that the evidence justified the instructions of the court, and, it might be added, if need be, that it fully warranted the finding of the jury. Based on that testimony, the court further instructed the jury that if the attorney of the corporation informed the defendant of the suit and its nature, and of the day of the trial, and conversed with him about the testimony for the defence, he was as much chargeable with notice as if he had been directly told that he could contest the right of the injured party to recover, and that the corporation would look to him for indemnity in case of an adverse result. Argument for the defendant was that the notice was defective, because the attorney did not specify in what court the suit was pending, but the presiding justice instructed the jury that when the defendant was told that the injured party had sued the corporation for the injuries occasioned by his falling into an area which he, the defendant, had built, then it was his duty to have inquired and ascertained in what court the action was to be tried. Knowledge of the pendency of the suit in the most authentic form was brought home to him, and the legal presumption is that he knew that he was answerable over to the corporation, and if so, it must also be presumed that he knew he had a right to defend the suit. Being in the court-house on the day the trial commenced, or the day before, and having been informed by the corporation attorney that the case was about to be heard, the defendant cannot evade the effect of the judgment upon the ground that he did not know in which court the case was pending. Persons notified of the pendency of a suit in which they are directly interested must exercise reasonable diligence in protecting their interests, and if instead of doing so they wilfully shut their eyes to the means of knowledge which they know are at hand to enable them to act efficiently, they cannot subsequently be allowed to turn round and evade the consequences which their own conduct and negligence have superinduced.

Decision of this court in this case, when it was here before, was that express notice to the defendant to defend the prior suit was not necessary in order to render him liable to the corporation for the amount of the judgment paid to the injured party; that if he knew that the suit was pending, and could have defended it, he was concluded by the judgment as to the amount of the damages, and we adhere to that rule as the settled law of the court.

II. Second exception is even more general in its terms than the first, and might well be rejected on that account as presenting no definite question for the decision of the court. Statement in the bill of exceptions is that the defendant excepts to so much of the charge of the court as relates to the construction of the area described in the declaration, and the record shows that the part of the charge referred to fills more than a page of the transcript, and for the most part is merely descriptive of the circumstances under which the area was constructed.

Purport of the description is that the defendant was engaged in erecting a large and valuable building on his lot, fronting on the east side of Wells Street, and that he caused an area to be constructed in the sidewalk in front of the building, appurtenant to the same, and for its convenience and accommodation.

Prior to that time the corporation had passed an ordinance requiring the grade of this street to be raised, and the work of raising the grade as ordered was accomplished during the summer preceding the accident. Change of grade in the street made it necessary to raise the sidewalk, so that the defendant, in order to construct the area in front of his building, was not obliged to make much excavation.

Declaration alleged that the place for the area was excavated, and the defendant contended that the proofs did not sustain that allegation, as they showed that the depth of the area was chiefly created by filling and raising the sidewalk on each side of it, and not by excavation, as alleged. Charge of the court was that it was immaterial whether the depth of the area was obtained in the one or the other of these modes, or by both, and we have no doubt the charge was correct.

Material matter alleged and in issue was, that the defendant caused or created the obstruction or defect in the street which occasioned the injury and wrongfully left it open and unguarded, as alleged in the declaration; and if he did so, it surely was immaterial whether he constructed it by excavation or in the manner described by the contractor. Strong effort was made to show in argument that the defendant, in constructing the area, acted under the express orders of the corporation, and consequently that he is not liable in this action. Theory of his counsel is, that inasmuch as the ordinance of the corporation directed the grade of the street to be raised, he but executed the orders of the corporation in doing the work. Suppose all that be granted, still it is evident that it constitutes no defence to this action. His authority to raise the sidewalk to the new grade is not contested.

Neither the ordinance nor the evidence, however, shows that in excavating, or leaving unfilled, the place for the area, he acted under the directions of the corporation, or that his acts were in any way for their benefit. Absence of objections on the part of the officers of the corporation authorize the presumption that the defendant was not in fault in constructing the area so as to raise the surface to the even grade of the street, and justified the charge of the court, that in constructing it the jury might infer that he acted under their implied license, but no license can be presumed from that fact, or from any other evidence in the case, to leave the area open and unguarded, which was the gravamen of the charge in the declaration.

Instructions of the court were substantially in accordance with those views, and were quite as favorable to the defendant as he had any right to expect.

Remarks already made show that the defendant, in constructing the area, was not constructing a public improvement for the benefit of the corporation, but was constructing a private work exclusively for his own convenience. Attempt is made to give the work a public character, because, in constructing the area, it became necessary to raise the sidewalk to the new grade, but the argument is hardly plausible, and is clearly without any solid foundation. Liability of the defendant, however, was not placed upon the ground that he was not authorized to raise the sidewalk. On the contrary, the jury were distinctly told that the gravamen of the charge was, not that the defendant was engaged in an unlawful work when he constructed the area, but the court placed his liability upon the ground that he left the area open and without guards to warn those who had occasion to pass in the street, so that the work, which was originally lawful, became a nuisance and was unlawful at the time of the injury. Correctness of that instruction, in view of the evidence as reported in the transcript, is so manifest that it needs no support.

Objection is also taken to the instruction in which the court told the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the area was built under the direction of the defendant, and for his benefit, and that it was left open and without guards, and that the plaintiff in the suit against the corporation, while passing along the street, fell into the area and was injured as alleged, then they would find for the plaintiff. Want of reasonable care on the part of the injured party was not alleged in defence or suggested in argument, and instructions as to notice to the defendant of the pendency of the prior suit had been previously given to the jury.

Argument for the defendant is that the instruction as to the liability of the defendant was erroneous. He contends that the evidence showed that the erection of the building and all the other work, including the construction of the area, was done by an independent contractor, and that the owner of the land, for whose benefit the improvements were made, is not liable in such cases for any such injuries occasioned by an obstruction or defect in the street caused or created by the contractor or his workmen in the construction of such improvements. Two answers may be given to that proposition, either of which is satisfactory—

1. That it assumes a theory of fact which is contradicted by the evidence.

2. That this court, in its former decision, overruled it as applied to a case where the work contracted to be done was itself of a character necessarily to constitute an obstruction or defect in the street or highway requiring precautions, care, and oversight, to protect the traveller from danger and injury.

1. Theory of fact assumed by the defendant is not sustained by the evidence. Seven contractors were employed in preparing the lot, laying the foundations, erecting and completing the building, raising the sidewalk, constructing the area, laying the flagstones, putting in the gratings, and finishing the improvements. Contractor who constructed the area finished his contract prior to the nineteenth day of December, 1856, when he left and went away, and did not return till after the accident.

Uncontradicted evidence was introduced that the defendant frequently visited the premises during the progress of the work, and that the curb-wall was raised eight or nine inches under his special directions, in the latter part of September of that year. Both the area and curb-wall were ready for the flagstones four months before the accident. When the area was completed it was covered with joists, three by twelve inches, but they were afterwards removed, when the gratings were put down, late in the fall, and were never properly replaced. Attention of the defendant was several times called to the dangerous condition of the sidewalk, and the superintendent of public works gave him notice in writing that the area was not properly covered. He gave no heed to these repeated admonitions, but insisted throughout that it was the sole business of the contractor, with which he had nothing to do. Such wilful negligence the law will never excuse.

2. Import of the decision of this court in reversing the former judgment of the Circuit Court, and remanding the cause for a new trial, was, that the party contracting for the work was liable, in a case like the present, where the work to be done necessarily constituted an obstruction or defect in the street or highway which rendered it dangerous as a way for travel and transportation, unless properly guarded or shut out from public use; that in such cases the principal for whom the work was done could not defeat the just claim of the corporation, or of the injured party, by proving that the work which constituted the obstruction or defect was done by an independent contractor.

Strictly speaking, that question was not open in this case, but the argument was allowed to proceed; and, lest there should be a doubt upon the subject, it is proper to say that we again affirm the proposition.

Where the obstruction or defect caused or created in the street is purely collateral to the work contracted to be done, and is entirely the result of the wrongful acts of the contractor or his workmen, the rule is that the employer is not liable; but where the obstruction or defect which occasioned the injury results directly from the acts which the contractor agrees and is authorized to do, the person who employs the contractor and authorizes him to do those acts is equally liable to the injured party.

Implied authority was doubtless shown to construct the area, if it was done with proper precautions to prevent accidents to travellers, but no authority to construct it without such precautions is proved or can be presumed; and it is clear that in leaving it open and without guards during the progress of the work, or after its completion, the defendant was guilty of gross negligence, and the structure itself became unlawful. Concede that the defendant might cast the blame on the contractor while the area was being constructed, still it is clear to a demonstration that he cannot successfully make that answer for his own negligence after the work was completed, and the control and oversight of the contractor had ceased.

Looking at the case in any point of view, there is no error in the record.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.


text: Talk:Robbins v. Chicago City/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
United States v. McMasters

THIS was a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and involved two questions: one, that of a private boundary to a tract of land, the other a question of the admission of testimony taken under a commission.

The case was submitted on printed briefs of Mr. Stanbery, A. G., and Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Ashton, for the United States, plaintiff in error, and of Mr. Janin, contra.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. McMasters


text: Talk:United States v. McMasters

title: Talk:United States v. McMasters


text:
United States v. McMasters/Opinion of the Court

This suit was brought, in the court below, by the United States to recover possession of a tract of land situate in the Parish of St. Bernard, about ten miles below the city of New Orleans, on the east side of the River Mississippi, and between that river and Lake Borgne.

The defendants set up two grounds of defence: 1. That the tract of land in controversy had been granted to Madame Le Compte by the Spanish government, November 3d, 1784; and, 2. That the grant was confirmed to F. and J. Phillipon by act of Congress, March 3d, 1835, from whom the defendants derived their titles.

1. The Spanish grant was produced on the trial from the register's office in New Orleans, where these ancient titles are deposited, and is found in the record.

The Governor, in making the grant, recites:

'Considering the foregoing proceedings, made by the segundo ayundante of this place, Louis Andry, who was appointed to make survey and put Dn. Maria Le Compte in possession of the vacant land which lies in rear or at the extremity of the forty arpents in depth of the plantation belonging to Bachemin, Corbin, Voison, and Portugais, and consists of fourteen arpents in front, composing the said plantations, until it reaches Lake Borgne; and, finding that said proceedings are made agreeably to the order of survey, and to the grants of the above-named parties, who are not injured-nay, who have assented thereto, &c.-Now, THEREFORE, &c., we do, by these presents, 'grant to the said Maria Le Compte the above-mentioned fourteen arpents front from the forty arpents in depth owned by the said Bachemin, &c., to the aforesaid lake, following the same directions which the boundary lines of the said Bachemin, &c., run, in order that she may dispose of and enjoy the same, &c.'

There is some obscurity in the language of the grant, and, if it was open for construction, there is ground for the interpretation contended for by the government, namely: that the tract granted consisted of an area of fourteen arpents front, and extending back within parallel lines to Lake Borgne. But this obscurity is removed by the official Spanish survey referred to in the grant, and which, as we have seen, was before the government when the grant was made.

Phelps, a United States deputy surveyor, and who has been in the service of the government, under the Surveyor-General, since 1828, surveyed the side lines of this tract in 1831, and, according to his recollection and belief, had before him, at the time, the original Spanish survey of Landry, and followed the side lines of that survey, which were not parallel, but were diverging side lines, corresponding with those of the front grant to Bachemin and others. That grant fronted on a bend of the river, on the convex side, or shore; and, according to the usage in Spanish locations on such bends, and which is the usage and practice of locations under our system of survey, the side lines run at right angles with the bend of the river, and, as in the instance before us, diverge and widen as the lines extend for the entire depth of the front lot. It was these diverging lines terminating at the rear of the Bachemin lot that were extended in the same direction by the survey and location of the back lot of Madame Le. Compte, by Landry, to Lake Borgne, and which were afterwards adopted by Phelps. This Spanish survey and location of the grant removes any obscurity that may exist in the description.

The survey of Landry was not produced, but its existence and loss were sufficiently proved to let in the secondary evidence presented on the trial.

The testimony of Phelps was taken under a commission, and when produced at the trial several objections were taken to its competency and admissibility, on the part of the government, which were overruled. The objections were very general and indefinite, without pointing out the portions of his answers to the interrogatories which were inadmissible, except in gross, embracing matters clearly competent and relevant to the issues. It is the duty of the party excepting to evidence to point out the part excepted to, so that the attention of the court may be drawn to it. If the exception covers any admissible evidence, it is rightly overruled. This principle disposes of all the objections in which any doubt can exist as to the competency of the evidence.

We do not regard, however, the portion of Phelps's testimony objected to as of any particular importance in the case. The only portions of his evidence which are material relate to the Landry survey of Madame Le Compte's grant, and his own survey of the same in 1831. But—

2. The most conclusive defence to this action to recover the land in question is the decision of the register and receiver, on the petition of F. and J. A. Phillipon for confirmation, dated December 20th, 1832, the report of these officers in favor of the claim, 5th September, 1833, and confirmation by act of Congress, March 3d, 1835.

The Phillipons owned a large tract of land derived from six French and Spanish grants, all of which are set out on the record, and among them is the grant in question to Madame Le Compte. They state in their petition that the land is situate in the Parish of St. Bernard, on the east bank of the Mississippi River, about ten miles below the city of New Orleans, measuring twenty-one arpents front by an irregular depth extending to Lake Borgne, bounded on one side by the plantation of Mr. Guichard, and on the other side (below) by the plantations of the widow Beauregard; the whole, according to a full and detailed plot thereof, executed by Augustus S. Phelps, United States deputy surveyor, in the month of February, 1831, herewith presented and prayed to be accorded. This map is in the record, and includes the tract of Madame Le Compte, with the diverging lines, as surveyed by Landry, and afterwards by Phelps.

The register and receiver, after hearing the proofs in the case, and referring to the claim, and reciting that it contains twenty-one arpents front by an irregular depth extending to Lake Borgne, and bounded above by land of Mr. Guichard, and below by land of the widow Beauregard; and reciting, also, that the tract is made up of several tracts, all of which are derived from the original grants made, and completed in due form, as follows: enumerating the six French and Spanish grants, with their dates, report-'We are therefore of opinion that this claim ought to be confirmed.' This claim, thus described by the register and receiver, was specifically confirmed, referring to the date of this report, by the act of Congress of March 3d, 1835.

We do not deem it necessary to pursue the case further. It seems to us that the title, to the extent claimed by the Phillipons, under whom the defendants held, has not only been confirmed by this government, but that the grants under the French and Spanish governments were as extensive, and the boundaries as well defined and settled, as we are of opinion they now are under the survey and location confirmed by act of Congress.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:United States v. McMasters/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Cournot Theory of Wealth (1838).djvu/36

 22 discovery of mines in America. On the other hand, if he should see the price of wheat double from one year to the next without any remarkable variation in the price of most other articles or in their relative values, he would attribute it to an absolute change in the value of wheat, even if he did not know that a bad grain harvest had preceded the high price.

Without reference to this extreme case, where the disturbance of the system of relative values is explained by the movement of a single article, it is evident that among all the possible hypotheses on absolute variations some explain the relative variations more simply and more probably than others.

If, without being limited to consideration of the system of relative values at two distinct periods, observation follows it through its intermediate states, a new set of data will be provided to determine the most probable law of absolute variations, from all possibilities for satisfying the observed law of relative variations.

9. Let

be the values of certain articles, with reference to a gram of silver; if the standard of value is changed and a myriagram of wheat is substituted for the gram of silver, the values of the same articles will be given by the expressions

a being the price of the myriagram of wheat, or its value with reference to a gram of silver. In general, whenever it


text:
Page:Cournot Theory of Wealth (1838).djvu/37

 Rh is desired to change the standard of value, it will suffice to multiply the numerical expressions of individual values by a constant factor, greater or less than unity; just as with a system of points conditioned to remain in a straight line, it would suffice to know the distances from these points to any one of their number, to determine by the addition of a constant number, positive or negative, their distances referred to another point of the system, taken as the new origin.

From this there results a very simple method of expressing by a mathematical illustration the variations which occur in the relative values of a system of articles. It is sufficient to conceive of a system composed of as many points arranged in a straight line as there are articles to be compared, so that the distances from one of these points to all the others constantly remain proportional to the logarithms of the numbers which measure the values of all these articles with reference to one of their number. All the changes of distance which occur by means of addition and subtraction, from the relative and absolute motions of such a system of movable points, will correspond perfectly to the changes by means of multiplication and division in the system of values which is being compared: from which it follows that the calculations for determining the most probable hypothesis as to the absolute movements of a system of points, can be applied, by going from logarithms back to numbers, to the determination of the most probable hypothesis for the absolute variations of a system of values.

But, in general, such calculations of probability, in view of the absolute ignorance in which we would be of the causes of variation of values, would be of very slight interest.


text:
Page:Buttered Side Down.djvu/10

BUTTERED SIDE DOWN I

THE FROG AND THE PUDDLE

NY one who has ever written for the magazines (nobody could devise a more sweeping opening; it includes the iceman who does a humorous article on the subject of his troubles, and the neglected wife next door, who journalizes) knows that a story the scene of which is not New York is merely junk. Take Fifth Avenue as a framework, pad it out to five thousand words, and there you have the ideal short story.

Consequently I feel a certain timidity in confessing that I do not know Fifth Avenue from Hester Street when I see it, because I’ve never seen it. It has been said that from the latter to the former is a ten-year journey, from which I have gathered that they lie some miles apart. As for Forty-second Street, of which musical comedians carol, I know not if it be a [1]

title: Page:Buttered Side Down.djvu/10


text:
Page:Buttered Side Down.djvu/5

 COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY

FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY

COPYRIGHT, 1911, 1912, BY

THE PHILLIPS PUBLISHING COMPANY

COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY

COLLIER AND NAST, INC.

COPYRIGHT, 1911, BY

THE CURTISS PUBLISHING COMPANY

COPYRIGHT, 1911, BY

STANDARD FASHION COMPANY

COPYRIGHT, 1911, BY

THE RIDGWAY COMPANY

COPYRIGHT, 1911, BY

THE RED BOOK CORPORATION

All rights reserved

March, 1912

title: Page:Buttered Side Down.djvu/5


text:
Page:The Dictionary of Australasian Biography.djvu/57

 Bird, Hon. Bolton Stafford, Colonial Treasurer of Tasmania, was born near Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1840. He has been in the Australasian colonies since 1853, and in Tasmania since 1879. About twelve years of his life were spent as a minister of the Congregational Church. Soon after his arrival in Tasmania he resigned the charge of the Davey Street Congregational Church, Hobart, of which he was the minister, and betook himself to fruit-growing in the Huon district. He has taken an active part in the recent establishment of the fruit export trade to England. He has represented the Franklin district in the House of Assembly since 1882. In March 1887 he joined the Ministry as Colonial Treasurer. He was a member of the Commissions on Education and on Lunatic Asylums in 1883, and is a member of the Council of the University of Tasmania. Mr. Bird was one of the representatives of the colony at the third and fourth sessions of the Federal Council of Australasia, and at the Federation Conference at Melbourne in 1890, and the Sydney Federation Convention in 1891.

Birnie, Richard, second son of the late Sir Richard Birnie, Chief Metropolitan Police Magistrate at Bow Street, was born in London in 1808. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1830, and M.A. in 1837. He entered at the Inner Temple on Jan. 9th, 1828, and was called to the bar on May 7th, 1833. After practising in the Central Criminal Court Mr. Birnie was appointed by the Duke of Newcastle Advocate-General of Western Australia, in which colony he arrived in Jan. 1854. After holding this post for nearly six years he acted as judge for about a year. Arriving in 1859 in Melbourne, he was called to the Victorian bar on Oct. 13th in the same year. He was on several occasions employed as crown prosecutor in Victoria, but has been mainly known as a contributor of essays to the Australasian. His father, Sir Richard Birnie, was originally a saddler, but is chiefly known by his success in detecting and hunting down the "Cato Street" conspirators.

Black, Alexander, ex-Surveyor-General of Victoria, was born in Banffshire, educated in Aberdeen as a land surveyor, and emigrated to Victoria in 1852, where he arrived in December, and proceeded to the Castlemaine goldfield. He returned to Melbourne in 1853, and practised his profession. On April 18th, 1854, he was appointed Government Assistant-Surveyor, and Geodetic Surveyor in 1860, and in this capacity surveyed the boundary line between Victoria and New South Wales. Mr. Black became District Surveyor in 1871, Assistant Surveyor-General in 1878, and succeeded to his late position of Surveyor-General of Victoria on the retirement of Mr. in 1886. Mr. Black was a member of the Board of Land and Works, a Commissioner of Land Tax, and Chairman of Parks and Gardens Committees until he retired in 1892.

Black, Maurice Hume, M.L.A., is a grand-nephew of the celebrated Joseph Hume, Member for Montrose in the British House of Commons. He was born in London on Dec. 15th, 1835, and married in 1861 a niece of the great statesman, George Canning. Having emigrated to Victoria in 1852, Mr. Black left the goldfields of that colony to try his luck in pastoral pursuits in South Australia, subsequently going to Riverina, and in 1864 to Queensland, where he still resides. He is the inventor of a steam sheep-washing process, and went into sugar planting in the Mackay district of Queensland in 1871. In 1881 he was returned to the Legislative Assembly for that electorate, for which he still sits. Having taken a prominent part in the agitation for the separation of Northern Queensland from the rest of the colony, and its formation into a distinct colony, he was in 1887 commissioned to go to England with Mr. to press the matter upon the attention of the Home Government, Mr. and Dr. having done much to bring the matter into the region of practical politics by their exertions during the previous year. Though not successful in inducing Lord Knutsford to take steps for the separation of Northern Queensland, the advanced phase which the question has since assumed is a good deal due to the efforts of the delegation of 1887. In June 1888, on the formation of the second Administration, Mr. Black became Secretary of Public Works, and continued to hold the post when five months later the Ministry was reconstructed under Mr. . 41


text:
Page:The Dictionary of Australasian Biography.djvu/58

 He resigned with his colleagues in August 1890.

Black, Hon. Neil, M.L.C., J.P., was the son of Alexander Black, and was born at Cowal, Argyleshire, in 1804. He emigrated to Australia in 1839, and went to the Camperdown district, where, as the representative partner of Mr. Finlay, of Castle Toward, Argyleshire, Mr. Stuart Gladstone, of Capenock, and Mr. Stewart, of Glenormiston, Perthshire, Scotland, he purchased the Glenormiston property. The partnership, which was highly remunerative after 1846, continued until 1868, when the property was divided. Mr. Black bought Mr. Gladstone's portion, now known as Mount Noorat, and resided on it until his death May 15th, 1880. Mr. Black, who married Miss Grace Greenshiels Leadbetter, for many years represented the Western Province in the Legislative Council, and was also a magistrate for the southern bailiwick. As a politician he was a staunch Conservative, and opposed the introduction of free education.

Blackall, Col. Samuel Wensley, sometime Governor of Queensland, was the eldest son of Major Robert Blackall, H.E.I.C.S., of Colamber Manor, co. Longford. He was born on May 1st, 1809, in Ireland, and took his degree at Trinity College, Dublin. He served in the 85th Light Infantry, was then major in the Longford Militia, and afterwards honorary colonel in the Leitrim Militia. Col. Blackall was M.P. for Longford in the House of Commons, from 1847 to 1851, a D.L. for counties Longford and Leitrim, High Sheriff of Longford in 1833, and for Tyrone in 1861. He was Lieutenant-Governor of Dominica from 1851 to 1857; Governor of Sierra Leone from 1862 to 1865; Governor-in-chief of the West African Settlements from 1865 to 1867; and Governor of Queensland, in succession to Sir George Bowen, from August 1868 to Jan. 2nd, 1871, when he died at Brisbane and was buried in the new cemetery there on the following day. Colonel Blackall married first, in 1833, Georgina, daughter of Henry Rowles, of London; and secondly, in 1848, Kate, daughter of the late James Bond, who died in 1864.

Blackett, Cuthbert Robert, F.C.S., J.P., Government Analytical Chemist, is son of the late Rev. C. R. Blackett, Independent minister at Southminster, England, where he was born Oct. 9th, 1831. Having served his time as a pharmaceutical chemist, he arrived in Melbourne in Jan. 1853, and became a member of the first council of the Pharmaceutical Society, and ultimately its Secretary and President. He was also for five years editor of the journal published by that society. On the passing of the Pharmacy Act in 1877, the Government appointed him one of the members of the Pharmacy Board, and on the retirement of Mr. Bosisto he was elected President. He was examiner in chemistry to the College of Pharmacy, and for some time acted as lecturer on chemistry, materia medica, and botany, pending the arrival of Professor A. H. Jackson, B.Sc. In 1879 he was elected to the Assembly for Fitzroy in the Conservative interest. Mr. Blackett was President of the Royal Technological Commission; and when the Central Board of Health was formed he was offered the position of president, but declined it. In 1882 he was again returned for Fitzroy, but was defeated at the next general election, owing to his pronounced free-trade views. Mr. Blackett was appointed Government Analytical Chemist on the death of Mr. Johnson, in 1887, and is also a Fellow of the Chemical Society of London, and was co-examiner in chemistry to the Melbourne University, until he resigned the office. Mr. Blackett married in May 1870 at Stokesley, England, Miss Margaretta Palmer.

Blackett, John, M.Inst.C.E., was educated at Newcastle-on-Tyne, and was a pupil with Messrs. R. & W. Hawthorn, engineers, 1834-41; draughtsman and office engineer to the Great Western Steamship Company, 1841-4; head engineer in iron shipbuilding and railway work with T. R. Guppy, A.I.C.E., 1844-6; engineer to the Governor and Company of Copper Mines in England at Cwm Avon, South Wales, 1846-8. From 1848 to 1851 he practised privately as an engineer in England. In 1859 Mr. Blackett was appointed provincial engineer at Nelson, N.Z., and in 1870 was advanced to the position of Acting Engineer-in-chief for New Zealand, becoming also Marine Engineer in the following year. In 1878 he was made Engineer-in-charge of the North Island, and in 1884 Engineer-in-chief of the 42


text:
Page:The Dictionary of Australasian Biography.djvu/59

 colony. Mr. Blackett is now Consulting Engineer of the Government of New Zealand in London.

Blackmore, Edwin Gordon, Clerk of the Legislative Council and Clerk of Parliaments, South Australia, was educated at King Edward VI. Grammar School, Bath; served with the Taranaki Rifle Volunteers in the New Zealand war from 1863 to 1864, and was present, in reserve, at the action of Poutoko, on Oct. 2nd, 1863, and at the storming and capture of the rebel Maori strongholds at Ahuahu and Kaitake in March 1864. For these services Mr. Blackmore received the New Zealand medal. He was appointed Parliamentary Librarian to the Legislature of South Australia in Oct. 1864; Clerk Assistant and Sergeant-at-arms, House of Assembly, in Dec. 1869; Clerk of the House of Assembly in May 1886; Clerk of the Legislative Council and Clerk of Parliaments in May 1887. Mr. Blackmore is author of "The Decisions of Mr. Speaker Denison on Points of Order, Rules of Debate, and the General Practice of the House of Commons from 1857 to 1872," "The Decisions of Mr. Speaker Brand from 1872 to 1884," "The Decisions of Mr. Speaker Peel from 1884 to 1886, and 1887 to 1889," and "Manual of the Practice, Procedure, and Usage of the House of Assembly of South Australia."

Blackmore, James Newnham, J.P., brother of the, was born in 1836, and was employed in the South Australian Chief Secretary's office from 1854 to 1857, when he was appointed Assistant Clerk and Sergeant-at-arms in the House of Assembly. Nine years later he became Secretary to the Commissioner for Crown Lands, and in 1870 Under Treasurer, a post which he held till his death, which took place in Adelaide on April 7th, 1875.

Blair, David, was born in 1820, and came to New South Wales at the instigation of Dr. Lang, in 1850, where he assisted Mr. (now Sir) in establishing the Empire newspaper in Sydney. In 1852 Mr. Blair settled in Victoria as correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, and became sub-editor of the Melbourne Argus. In 1854 he was appointed editor of the Age, and advocated the cause of the miners in their opposition to the unpopular digging licences. Mr. Blair was elected to the Assembly for Talbot in 1856, and for Crowlands in 1868. In 1867 he was appointed Secretary to the Royal Commission on Education, and acted in the same capacity to the Penal Commission in 1873. He wrote the first history of Australia in 1878, and in 1881 compiled the "Cyclopaedia of Australasia," a work which displays a minute and comprehensive knowledge of persons and events connected with the pioneer days of the colonies. In 1876 he edited the speeches of Sir Henry Parkes, which he prefaced with an introduction.

Blair, William Newsham, M.Inst.C.E., was in the service of the Provincial Government of Otago from 1864 to 1865; became district engineer in the Public Works Department of New Zealand in 1871, Engineer-in-charge of the Middle Island in 1878, and Assistant Engineer-in-Chief for the colony in 1884. In 1890 Mr. Blair was appointed Engineer-in-chief, and died on May 4th, 1891.

Blakeney, William Theophilus, Registrar-General of Queensland, comes of an Anglo-Irish family long settled at Abbert Castle, Blakeney, co. Galway, and was educated at the Collegiate School, Elphin, co. Roscommon, and at Stackpool's High School at Kingstown. He emigrated to Sydney in 1853, and was engaged in mercantile pursuits until Feb. 1856, when he received an appointment in the sheriff's office, which he exchanged in 1860 for a similar position in the sheriff's office of the then new colony of Queensland. He was appointed Under Sheriff of Queensland in 1862, Deputy Registrar-General in 1865, and Registrar-General upon the retirement of Mr. Jordan in 1883. Mr. Blakeney is also a Commissioner of Stamp Duties, and Registrar of Friendly Societies, Building Societies, and Trades Unions. He was Registrar of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks from 1883 to 1889, when he resigned.

Bland, Rivett Henry, is the son of Dr. Thomas Bland, and was born at Newark, Nottinghamshire, on Feb. 2nd, 1811. He was educated at the Grammar School, Newark, and studied for the medical profession at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London. Leaving England in May 1829, for Western Australia, he arrived in August, and after a short interval was appointed by the then Governor (Sir ) to settle the York 43


text:
Page:The Dictionary of Australasian Biography.djvu/60

 , about seventy miles distant from Perth. In this locality he remained for a number of years as resident magistrate, his principal duty being to protect the settlers from the blacks, with whose language and customs he obtained an intimate acquaintance. Towards the end of 1848 he accompanied Captain, who had in the meantime become Governor of Western Australia, in the capacity of private secretary, on an expedition to Champion Bay, for the purpose of examining a lode of galena, discovered on the Murchison River by Mr. . The party consisted of the Governor, Mr. Bland, Mr. Gregory, three soldiers, and a servant. The discovery was verified, but on the return journey the Governor was speared in the leg by the blacks, and Mr. Bland had a narrow escape. Returning to England after a visit to the eastern colonies, he was in 1852 appointed resident Director of the Port Phillip and Colonial Gold Mining Company, and arrived in Melbourne towards the end of that year. In 1856 he arranged with the proprietors of some land at Clunes to commence mining operations on some quartz lodes, and erected an extensive plant of machinery in conjunction with a party of miners, afterwards called the Clunes Quartz Mining Company. This mine has continued to be worked to the present time with varying results. The total gold, raised from 1857 to 1884 was 506,220 ounces, of the value of £2,029,078 13s. 7d., giving a profit of nearly half a million from an outlay under £20,000.

Bland, William, M.R.C.S., the son of Dr. Robert Bland, an eminent physician and writer on medical subjects, was born in London on Nov. 5th, 1789, and educated at Merchant Taylors' School. Having been admitted M.R.C.S. in 1810, he received an appointment in the Royal Navy, and sailed for Bombay. During the voyage he quarrelled with the purser, and when they reached land a duel was fought, in which the purser was killed. Lieutenant Randall, one of the ship's officers, having insinuated unfairness, Mr. Bland fought him without result, but they were afterwards arrested, tried at Calcutta, and sentenced to seven years' transportation; Mr, Bland being sent to Sydney, where he arrived in 1814, and having received a free pardon, practised his profession. In the course of divorce proceedings which he had instituted against his wife, Mr. Bland referred in libellous terms to Governor Macquarie, and in consequence was criminally indicted before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and fined £50, with twelve months in Parramatta Gaol, which sentence was fully exacted. On his release Mr. Bland devoted himself to benevolent projects, and took a prominent part as a member of the Patriotic Association, in the great struggle for political emancipation which was then engrossing the attention of the colonists, his efforts in the cause of local autonomy entitling him to rank with amongst the greatest benefactors of the community, amongst whom he originally came under such inauspicious circumstances. When the elections to the first partially representative Legislative Council of New South Wales took place in 1843, Mr. Bland was returned, along with Wentworth, for the city of Sydney. Five years later, however, the tide of popular feeling turned against him in favour of more extremist agitators, headed by Mr. (now Lord Sherbrooke); and when, in 1848, the elections took place for the new Legislative Council, in which Sydney had three members given her instead of two, Mr. Bland was lowest on the poll of the four candidates, Messrs. Wentworth, Lowe, and Lamb being elected, despite the incisive attack made by Wentworth on Mr. Lowe's inconsistencies, and his impassioned appeal to the constituency to reject himself rather than his friend Mr. Bland, of whom he said, "No man has ever served a country in a purer spirit of patriotism, no man ever more deeply deserved the gratitude of a generous people, than he has." Mr. Bland died suddenly in Sydney, on July 21st, 1868. He was the author of "Suppression of Spontaneous Combustion in Woolships" (second edition, 1845), "Letters to Charles Buller, M.P." (1849), and other brochures.

Blyth, Hon. Sir Arthur, K.C.M.G., C.B., late Agent-General for South Australia, was the son of William Blyth, late of Adelaide, S.A., but previously of Birmingham, England, by Sarah, daughter of Rev. William Wilkins, of  44


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/260

 effort to give as clear a representation as possible of what he sees. Though he too everywhere introduces physiological considerations into his anatomical investigation, yet he keeps himself free from many preconceptions which his successors imported in this way into phytotomy. To mention one point by anticipation, he avoided the erroneous notion so common at a later time, and first definitively removed by von Mohl in 1828, that the cell-walls must have visible openings to serve for the movement of the sap.

Grew's work, as has been said, separates into two main divisions; the first, 'The anatomy of plants begun, with a general account of vegetation founded thereupon,' was printed in 1671, and contains a brief and rapid account of the general anatomy and physiology of plants in forty-nine folio pages. Then the anatomy of roots, stems, leaves, flowers, fruits and seeds appeared as separate treatises in the following years up to 1682. We may pass over the chemical researches embodied in this work and the enquiries into the colours, taste and smell of plants, as well as the previously issued treatise, 'An idea of a philosophical history of plants,' which, as it was first laid before the Royal Society in 1672, we may imagine to have been intended as a counterpart to Malpighi's 'Anatomes plantarum idea,' though it is very different in character and admits much that is foreign to vegetable anatomy and physiology.

With Grew as with Malpighi the main point of enquiry is not the individual cell, but the histology; after distinguishing, like Malpighi, between the parenchymatous tissue and the longitudinally elongated fibrous forms, the true vessels and the sap-conducting canals, he is chiefly bent on explaining the combination of these tissues in the different organs of the plant; and in this point he is superior to Malpighi both in carefulness of description and in the beauty of his delineations. Grew's numerous figures on copper plates, more carefully executed than Malpighi's, give in fact so clear an idea especially


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/478

 at Wurtemburg; the Irish versions sing of “Lug, master of all the arts”; “Lug, with whom are all the arts”; “Prince of the manifold sciences.” At Tara, Lug asserts his mastery of all the arts and sciences of his day—champion, harper, antiquary, professor, artificer and carpenter. In Welsh legend he is a skilled shoemaker, and the shoemakers of Corduba regarded the Lugoves as their patrons. In his present form as a fairy, the Lughprechán or Lughcropán, he is still an accomplished shoemaker. He had nine chariots in the Battle of Magh Tured ; in this like other solar gods, and the horse cultus and races and chariots of which there are evident traces connected with Tara Tailltiu, Brug (the “prison of Liath Macha,” Cuchulaind’s divine steed) ; Carmun; the pillars called “Eclasa” or horse rod, at Knockainey, “Echlainn Loga” and “Echlasc Chon Chulainn.” Indeed it is probable that pious clerics or chiefs at Tara and Tailltiu emulated Josiah when “he took away the horses of the Sun” at Jerusalem and “burned the chariots of the Sun with fire,” for Lug was inventor of the óenach, or sacred race-course, and the horse rod. and had nine war chariots of his own.

First we may note how many Irish sanctuaries are said to bear the names of women (queens, heroines or goddesses), and that the place-names, being probably pre-Celtic and so irreducible by Celtic philologists, were thus artificially

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/478


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/479

 explained. I do not, however, on that account doubt but that there were really ancient legends connected with the places, but only think it probable that its place-name superseded that of a goddess. Local names often supersede personal ones, as titles do surnames at present. The number of alias names of Boand, the Boyne, show that one river goddess, perhaps named Segais, was called after several streams in Ireland, and we know that Lug was called “Dumias” or “Dumiatus” at his great temple on the Puy de Dôme, where stood his huge bronze statue.

This perhaps is true of Lug’s foster-mother, from whom the great Óenach Tailltinn was said to be named—Tailltiu, “so call her now, her other name is heard no more in heaven.” The place-name was probably of her temple, so it was used reverentially instead of the more sacred personal name, if the place gave its name to the patroness, not she to it. She was wife of Magmor, or MacUmoir, last king of the Fir Bolg. The Clann Umoir seem to be a divine race and figure in variant legends, the best known being that of which O’Donovan and Petrie made such exaggerated use in their theory of the ring forts. In the

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/479


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/261

 of the structure of the root and stem that a beginner may still use them with advantage; such figures as those on plates 36 and 40 and elsewhere show that he knew how to fashion his observations by aid of much reflection into a clear representation of the thing seen; there are, as might be expected, many errors in the details of the more delicate structure of the various forms of vessels and cells.

Malpighi had not said, whether he considered the cells of the parenchyma (the term parenchyma comes from Grew) to be perfectly closed or porous, nor how they cohere; Grew leaves no doubt on this point; he says distinctly on page 61 that the cells or vesicles of the parenchyma are closed, that their walls are not traversed by any visible pores, so that the parenchyma may be compared to the foam of beer. He quotes Malpighi's view respecting the vessels of the wood, and supplements it by saying that the spiral band is not always single, but that two or more bands entirely separate from one another may form the wall of the vessel, and also that the spiral thread is not flat but roundish like a wire, and its turns are more or less close together according to the part of the plant. He also notices that the spiral tubes are never branched, and that when they run straight, as in Arundo Donax, they can be seen throughout considerable distances. The view of the structure of spiral vessels, which began with Malpighi and was maintained through the whole of the 18th century, Grew (p. 117) expresses still more distinctly than Malpighi; but it is to be observed that neither of them clearly distinguished true spiral vessels with separable spiral threads from vessels of the kind which occurs in secondary wood, and only shows a spiral structure on being torn. From the way, says Grew, in which the threads are woven, it comes to pass that the vessels often unroll into a flat surface, as we may imagine a narrow ribbon wound in a spiral about a round staff so that edge meets edge; and if the staff is drawn out, the ribbon so wound will remain behind


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gow, Niel

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gow, Niel


text:
User:Logicalgregory

Logicalgregory is Dr Frank H. Gregory. My papers uploaded to Wikisource can be seen at my Author's Page. Resume and publications list is at http://logicalgregory.jimdo.com/

User rameshchollada has been using my computer, and my guidance, to upload a paper to Wikisource. He is not a sock puppet.

title: User:Logicalgregory


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/262

 in the form of a tube, and this would answer to an air-vessel in the plant. We should notice specially that Grew, better taught than the phytotomists of the 18th century, considers the vessels of the wood as air-passages, though they sometimes convey water. But he goes on with his description of the wall of the vessel; the flat surface disclosed by the unwinding of a vessel is, he says, itself composed of many parallel threads, as in an artificial ribbon, and the threads that are spirally wound answer to the warp in an artificial tissue, being held together by transverse threads, which correspond to the woof. To realise to ourselves this very strange idea of the structure of a spiral vessel as it appeared to Grew, we ought to know that he thinks that all cell-walls, even those of the parenchyma, are composed of an extremely fine web; his previous comparison of cell-tissue with foam was only intended to make the more obvious circumstances clear to the reader; his real idea is, that the substance of the walls of vessels and cells consists of an artificial web of the finest threads. He hints at this on pages 76 and 77, and on page 120 he returns once more to this conception and dwells upon it at great length. The most exact comparison, he says, which we can make of the whole body of a plant is with a piece of fine lace-tissue, such as women make upon a cushion; for the pith, the medullary rays, and the parenchyma of the rind are an extremely delicate and perfect tissue of thread. The threads of the pith run horizontally like the threads in a piece of woven stuff, and form the boundaries of the numerous vesicles of the pith and the rind, as the threads in a web bound the interstices in it. But the woody fibres and the air-vessels are perpendicular to this tissue, and therefore at right angles to the horizontal threads of the parenchyma, just as the needles in a piece of lace work that lies on the cushion are perpendicular to the threads. To complete the comparison we ought to suppose the needles to be hollow and the tissue of thread-lace in a thousand layers one above another. Grew


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Lombart, Pierre


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/263

 himself states incidentally, that he lit upon this notion from looking at shrivelled masses of tissue, when he naturally saw wrinkles and folds, which he took for threads. Besides he seems to have used blunt knives, which might easily tear the cell-walls into threads; so we might gather from the figure in Plate 40, where what he supposes to have been a tissue of thread from the walls of a cell is depicted quite plainly. Lastly the observation of vessels with reticulated thickening, and parenchyma-cells with crossed striation may have contributed to his view.

It will hardly be superfluous to remark here, that Grew's idea of this very delicate structure of cell-walls has evidently given rise to the common expression cell-tissue (contextus cellulosus) when speaking of plants and animals, an expression which has become naturalised in microscopy, and is still retained though we no longer think of Grew's comparison of cell-structure with artificial lace. But the word tissue has often misled later writers, as words are apt to do, and made them found their conception of vegetable structure on the resemblance to an artificial tissue of membranes and threads.

Grew, like Malpighi, derives the young layers of wood in the stem from the innermost layers of the rind. The true wood, he says on page 114, is entirely composed of old lymph-vessels, that is of fibres, which lay originally in the inner circumference of the rind. But by true woody substance he understands the fibrous components of the wood, excluding the air-vessels; his lymph-vessels are the bast-fibres and similar forms; for, he goes on, the air-vessels with the medullary rays and the true wood form what is commonly called the wood of a tree; he uses the term air-vessels, not because these forms never contain sap, but because they only contain a vegetable air during the proper period of vegetation, when the vessels of the rind are filled with sap.

The above is certainly a very imperfect account of Grew's services to phytotomy; for the points here made prominent


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/480

114 curious list of gods and heroes (perhaps interpolated) in the Taín bo Cualnge we also find Oengus, Cimb, Mod and Lathrach, along with the undoubted gods Lug, Ogma, Macha, the Morrigu, Ane and Roth. If gods, we can understand how they were granted the chief sanctuaries of Meath by the king of Tara; if a little band of fugitives (as in MacLiac’s poem), the statement is in the last degree absurd. In the list in the Taín we also find an “Amairgen of Tailltiu,” a little-known hero who, in the same poem, fought a battle on its site.

Eochaid, husband of Tailltiu, was chiefly remembered for having made the Dumha na n Giall, the great “Mound of the hostages” at Tara. How Lug came to be sent for fosterage to Tailltiu is not explained in our accessible sources.

Lug’s pedigree calls for a moment’s notice. He was son of Cian (son of Diancecht, the divine physician) and Ethliu, daughter of Bilé, ancestor of the Milesian race. “Beil” was the god of Uisnech and gave his name to the Beil tinne or sacred fire of the Belltaine rites; he is a shadow of the great Gaulish god Belinus. As Sir John Rhys shows, the Welsh pedigrees of Lieu, grandson of Beli, and the Torry Island story making Lug grandson of the horrible demon god, Balor “of the deadly eye” (which Lug, in old Irish legend, dashed out with a sling-stone in the Battle of Magh Tured), closely agree. Now Beli was father of Nudd and Arianrhod, and Lug is father of Nuada in the legendary

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/480


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/264

 were treated by him as accessories only to the coarser histological relations with which he chiefly occupied himself.

These two works of Malpighi and Grew, so important not only for botany but for the whole range of natural science, were not followed during the course of the next hundred and twenty years by a single production, which can claim in any respect to be of equal rank with them; that long time was a period not of progress but of steady retrogression, as we shall see in the next chapter. But before the beginning of the 18th century made some contributions to the knowledge of the details of vegetable anatomy, if not exactly to the settling of very important points in it; he communicated his observations on animal and vegetable anatomy in numerous letters to the Royal Society of London, and these appeared for the first time in a collected form in Delft in 1695 under the title of 'Arcana naturae.' It is not easy to gain a clear idea of Leeuwenhoek's phytotomic knowledge from his scattered statements. He too discussed the less minute anatomy of fruits, seeds and embryos, and among other things he made occasional observations on


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/265

 germination, and many on the structure of different woods. But all bears the stamp of only occasional study of plants; he was led to his observations by questions of the nature-philosophy then in vogue, and especially by such as were connected with the theory of evolution, not unfrequently by mere curiosity and pleasure in things obscure and inaccessible to ordinary people, but he did not gain from them a general idea of the structure of plants. In the course of these observations he did unquestionable service in perfecting simple magnifying glasses; he made a large number with his own hands, and these possessed magnifying powers evidently not at the command either of Malpighi or Grew. By aid of such glasses he discovered the vessels of secondary wood which are not spirally thickened but beset with pits, the true character of which however he did not investigate. He was the first moreover who perceived the crystals in vegetable tissue, namely in the rhizome of Iris florentina and in species of Smilax, and this could only be done with strong magnifying powers. In other matters he repeats the histological views of Malpighi and Grew, and on the whole his numerous communications seem painfully fragmentary and unscientific in presence of Malpighi's elegance and perspicuity, and Grew's systematic thoroughness. His figures too, which were not drawn by himself, are with some exceptions inferior to those of his great contemporaries.


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/481

Rh divine descents of the Munster princes. They give the descent “Derg Dergthine, son of Nuada Argetlamh, son of Lug mac Edlenn,” and are confirmed by the early poem on “Mosaulom” (Oilioll Aulom) where Daig Dergthine, son of Nuada Aicnech Luigthine, son of Lug Feidlech,” is given. This contradicts the more usual Irish pedigree of Lug as son of Cian, and corroborates the Welsh by introducing Nuada. As we shall see, the close connection of Lug and Nuada is important to the understanding of the “marriage myth” of Tailltiu.

There are apparently two “foundation legends” fused into the story of Tailltiu. One seems to have no Milesian affinities. Eochaid, son of Dua, king of Spain, ordered his subjects to cut down the wood of Cluan, clearing the plain, in honour of his wife Tailltiu. Three rath builders avoided conscription, and the queen demanded their lives. The king spared them on condition of each building a rath in one of the Fir Bolg states, the heritages of Gann, Genann and Sengann; one of the earthworks was Nas, elsewhere connected with Lug and his wife, its namesake.

The second compromises between the gods of the hostile races and shows the simpler story in the course of

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/481


text: Folk-Lore/Volume 31/Obituary/James Drummond Anderson


text: Folk-Lore/Volume 31/Obituary/Mabel Peacock


text:
Page:Weird Tales volume 36 number 01.djvu/100

126 {|

 * Here is a stupendous weird scientific novel of Oriental intrigue... A super sinister blueprint to gain control of the world!
 * Here is a stupendous weird scientific novel of Oriental intrigue... A super sinister blueprint to gain control of the world!
 * Here is a stupendous weird scientific novel of Oriental intrigue... A super sinister blueprint to gain control of the world!
 * Here is a stupendous weird scientific novel of Oriental intrigue... A super sinister blueprint to gain control of the world!

And this smashing full length novel is not all; In addition there are three shorter stories, all by well known science fantasy authors.

Write now—Enclosing Fifty Cents—To: 9 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y., U. S. A.
 * | WEIRD TALES Book Dept.,
 * | WEIRD TALES Book Dept.,
 * For Your Cloth Bound Copy Of The Moon Terror
 * }
 * }

Announcement by Los Angeles Fantasy Society

As secretary of the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society I am writing this letter to announce that the L. A. S. F. S. wishes to affiliate with the WEIRD TALES CLUB and would appreciate your acknowledgment.

Due to our notice several issues ago in your magazine we have been in receipt of three inquiries and six visitors. In view of this it was deemed advisable to affiliate with the WEIRD TALES CLUB.

Our Society, known to followers of this department as "The Insiders," has among its prominent members Forrest J. Ackerman, Walter J. Daugherty, Arthur Joquel, Morojo, and Paul Freehafer, who are already members of your club.

We would like to remind all local fans that they are welcome to attend each and every meeting. The meetings are held every Thursday evening from 7 o'clock on at Clifton's Cafeteria. 648 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, Cal.

Edwin N. Chamberlain. Secretary, L. A. S. F. S. 1151 W. 107th Street, Los Angeles, California.

World Science Fiction Convention

And as we go to press, word comes in from the Colorado Fantasy Society that the World's Science Fiction Convention—sponsored by them—is being held in Denver, Colorado, on July 4th, 5th and 6th. We would like to extend, on behalf of all the members of the WEIRD TALES CLUB, our best wishes for the convention's success.

Free Horoscopes

I am a non-professional student of astrology. If any of your readers are interested in this subject I should be glad to cast and delineate the horoscopes of the first five people who write to me. In return, I want only that the people whose horoscopes are cast write and give me their opinion of my interpretation. The necessary data are the day and hour of birth and the birthplace. George Patrick. 61 Terrace Place. Schenectady, New York.

Hogs—and Weird Books

Please enroll me on the club roster. I am twenty-one years of age, live on a farm and raise hogs—but I am no "hick." My pet hobby is book-collecting, especially books of weird and occult character and am sincerely interested in the beliefs and opinions of other addicts. Bob Carson, Route 1, Rich Hill, Missouri.


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/705

Books for Review should be addressed to Folk-Lore, c/o 265

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/705


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Goulburn

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Goulburn


text:
Page:The Dictionary of Australasian Biography.djvu/61

, in Gloucestershire. He was born at Birmingham on March 19th, 1823, and educated at King Edward VI. Grammar School, in that town. Having emigrated to South Australia with his father and brothers in 1839, only three years after the formal constitution of the colony, he engaged in commercial pursuits, from which he retired in 1861. An instalment of representative government having been conceded, Sir Arthur, in 1855, entered the semi-elective Council as elected member for Yatala. Prior to this he had occupied various local posts, having been Chairman of the Mitcham District Council, Assessor of the City Corporation, Captain of the first Volunteer Force, formed during the Russian War scare; and a member of the Central Road Board, and of the Chamber of Commerce. The Council had been dissolved by Sir, the then Governor, with a view to the adoption of a new constitution on more liberal lines than the one previously in force. This great work was promptly achieved, and Sir Arthur Blyth took a prominent part in the legislation which enlarged the suffrage, instituted the bicameral system, and settled the constitution upon what, with slight changes, is its present basis. In the Legislative Assembly constituted under the Bill, Sir Arthur took his seat as member for Gumeracha, and represented the constituency till 1868. The Ministry, which included the author of the Torrens Act, having resigned office, the  Ministry was formed, in which Sir Arthur Blyth held the post of Commissioner of Public Works throughout its short-lived existence, from August to Sept. 1857. From June 1858 to May 1860 Sir Arthur held a similar position in the Ministry. In October of the following year Sir Arthur accepted the post of Treasurer under Mr. 's premiership, but resigned with his colleagues in July 1863. In August 1864 Sir Arthur formed his first Administration, holding, along with the premiership, the rather unusual post of Commissioner of Crown Lands and Emigration. In March 1865 he was thrown out of power, but came back as Treasurer under his old colleague, Sir, in Sept. 1865. This Ministry was also only formed to die; but Sir Arthur was not long in opposition, becoming Chief Secretary under Mr. in March 1866. The May of 1867 saw him again out of office, and he remained in opposition until May 1870, when he joined Mr. Hart as, for the second time, Commissioner of Crown Lands and Immigration. In Nov. 1871 the Government was reconstructed, and Sir Arthur became Treasurer and Premier. He did not secure a firm tenure, being thrown out in the January following. He, however, became Premier for the third time in July 1873, and was successful in holding his own till June 1875, when Mr. Boucaut's extensive scheme of public undertakings caused the electors to look askance at the more cautious policy of Sir Arthur Blyth's Cabinet. In March 1876 he accepted office as Treasurer in the reconstructed Boucaut Ministry, and in Feb. 1877 was appointed Agent-General in succession to the late Mr. . Prior to this Sir Arthur had revisited England, remaining from 1868 to 1870, in which latter year he was re-elected for Gumeracha, and sat until 1875, when he transferred his services to North Adelaide. In 1850 Sir Arthur married Jessie Anne, daughter of Edward Forrest, of Birmingham. In 1877, soon after his arrival in London, he was created a Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George, and in 1886 received the Civil Companionship of the Order of the Bath, in recognition of services rendered in connection with the Colonial and Indian Exhibition, at which he represented his colony both as Royal and Executive Commissioner. He was also presented with the freedom of the Salters' Company, one of the most ancient and exclusive of the City Guilds. In 1887 Sir Arthur was associated with Sir as one of the representatives of South Australia, at the Colonial Conference held in London in that year. He died at Bournemouth on Dec. 7th, 1891. Lady Blyth died a fortnight later.

Blyth, Neville, J.P., brother of the and son of the late William Blyth, of Adelaide, by Sarah, third daughter of Rev. William Wilkins, of Bourton-on-the-Water, Gloucestershire, was born at Birmingham in 1828. He arrived in South Australia with his father in 1839, and engaged in commercial pursuits. He was member for East Torrens from March 45