We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
254
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
terous; its mere presence in sufficient numbers to interfere with the adjoining owner’s rights constitutes the nuisance.
Where a place of amusement is so conducted that noises issue therefrom so as to disturb the peace and rest of the neighbors, it becomes a nuisance, whether such noises are caused by the patrons or by the performers.75
Herald (1915), 170 A. D. (N. Y.) 504; 156 N. Y. Supp. 651. The maintenance of an automatic baseball playograph which caused the collection of thousands of spectators and impeded traffic to the extent of requiring the presence of a large number of police officers and interfered with the ingress to and egress from plaintiff’s store constituted a nuisance, for which plaintiff was entitled to damages, and if not abated at time of trial, to an injunction.
Jaques v. Natl. Exhibit Co. (1884), 15 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 250. It was held that a puppet show in a window for advertising purposes, which drew together crowds of persons, was a nuisance.
Bellamy x. Wells (Eng.) (1890), 63 L. T. N. S. 635. The assemblage of large groups of persons before defendant’s club wherein boxing exhibitions were conducted was held to be a nuisance.
Rex v. Carlile (Eng.) (1819), 6
C. and P. 636. Defendant exhibited some effigies in his window, which caused the collection of large crowds in front of the window and obstructed passage along the street. Held a nuisance.
Rex v. Moore (Eng.) (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 184. The collection of a large number of persons on the road leading to defendant’s shooting grounds was held to be a nuisance. The court said: “If a person collects together a crowd of people to the annoyance of his neighbors, that is a nuisance for which he is answerable.”
76 Cluney v. Lee Wai (1896), 10 Hawaii, 319. The playing of instruments at defendant’s theatre from which such noises emanated as interfered with plaintiff’s slumber was enjoined.
See also: Penrose v. Nixon (1891), 140 Pa. St. 45; 21 Atl. 364, where injunction was refused to restrain noises caused by the shifting of scenery.
Village of Des Plaines v. Poyer