. . . . . . . . . .
Fox terrier. Beloved family pet.
. . . . . . . . . .
Effort Being Made to Compel Removal of Conductor Hansbro's Dog "Billy Y." An injunction suit to comple the removal of "Billy Hansbrough," the dog which was buried in Cave Hill cemetery several months ago, was filed here yesterday by Henry Hertle, the owner of the lot adjoining the one upon which the dog was buried. The defendants are Alice Riddle, who owns the lot where the dog was placed, and W.Y. and Ada Hansbrough, the owners of the dog, and the Cave Hill Cemetery company.
"Billy Hansbrough" was a much-beloved member of the Hansbrough family, and he came to an untimely end by falling into quick lime. After his demise Mrs. Hansbrough had his picture published in the papers at advertising rates and flourishing obituary notices of his many virtues. He was then laid to rest in the Riddle lot.
Mr. Hertle objects to the dog's burial there, claiming that it constitutes a nuisance. His daughter is interred in his lot.
The petition says that the regulations of the cemetery company provide that the grounds are to be used only for "members of the white race." Billy, it is urged, did not come within this classification.
It is further set forth that the cemetery company is willing that the dog be removed, but that the owner of the lot and the Hansbroughs object. There is no specific statute in Kentucky covering this point and the plaintiff relies on a code provision which applies to nuisances. In the history of modern jurisprudence no similar case can be found. O'Neal & O'Neal represent the plaintiff. Hansbrough is a conductor on the Illinois Central railroad and formerly lived in Paducah. The Paducah Sun, Paducah, Kentucky, Tuesday Evening, January 30, 1906
. . . . . . . . . .
Buried Dog Not a Nuisance. Judge Declines to Order Removal from Fashionable Cemetery. Louisville, Ky., March 30. -- Judge Shackelford Miller today handed down an opinion in the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, in which he decides that the court will not interfere to enforce the removal of a dog buried in Cave Hill Cemetery because the plaintiff regards such an interment as a nuisance and dislikes the idea of some day being buried near the canine tenant of the graveyard.
The defendant buried "Billy Hansbrough," a pet fox terrier, in her lot in Cave Hill, and the plaintiff sought to have the body removed. Judge Miller said:
"The injury done here is to the living plaintiff, who expects to be buried in his lot at some future time. It consists in his distress of mind in contemplating his daughter's present burial and his own prospective interment in a lot adjoining that in which Billy lies buried. If this be an injury to person or property, it is too incapable of being measured to invoke action by the court. If the claim of right here asserted be permitted to control it would prevent the burial of any one -- a murderer or a suicide, for instance -- whose grave might be objectionable to neighboring lot owners.
"That matter is in control of the cemetery company. An unburied dog, either alive or dead, may be a nuisance per se, but a dead dog, well buried, as in this case, is not a nuisance per se, and can not become one." Dallas Morning News, April 1, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Dog's Grave. Canine Must Not Be Buried in Cemetery. Frankfort, Ky., 24. -- The Court of Appeals reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, W.G. Hansbrough and Ada Hansbrough from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Louisville, and the latter will be compelled to remove from their lot in Cave Hill Cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. Hertle sought to enjoin the defendants and compel them to remove the carcass of the dog after learning that it had been interred on a plot adjoining his family lot in the cemetery. Hopkinsville Kentuckian, Saturday / Tuesday, December 24, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Must Remove Dog's Carcass. The court of appeals Thursday reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alide Riddle et al. of Louisville, Ky., and the latter will be compelled to remove from a lot in Cave Hill cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. The Riddle plot adjoins Hertle's. Sioux County Herald, Orange City, Iowa, December 25, 1907.
. . . . . . . . . .
Fox terrier. Beloved family pet.
. . . . . . . . . .
Effort Being Made to Compel Removal of Conductor Hansbro's Dog "Billy Y." An injunction suit to comple the removal of "Billy Hansbrough," the dog which was buried in Cave Hill cemetery several months ago, was filed here yesterday by Henry Hertle, the owner of the lot adjoining the one upon which the dog was buried. The defendants are Alice Riddle, who owns the lot where the dog was placed, and W.Y. and Ada Hansbrough, the owners of the dog, and the Cave Hill Cemetery company.
"Billy Hansbrough" was a much-beloved member of the Hansbrough family, and he came to an untimely end by falling into quick lime. After his demise Mrs. Hansbrough had his picture published in the papers at advertising rates and flourishing obituary notices of his many virtues. He was then laid to rest in the Riddle lot.
Mr. Hertle objects to the dog's burial there, claiming that it constitutes a nuisance. His daughter is interred in his lot.
The petition says that the regulations of the cemetery company provide that the grounds are to be used only for "members of the white race." Billy, it is urged, did not come within this classification.
It is further set forth that the cemetery company is willing that the dog be removed, but that the owner of the lot and the Hansbroughs object. There is no specific statute in Kentucky covering this point and the plaintiff relies on a code provision which applies to nuisances. In the history of modern jurisprudence no similar case can be found. O'Neal & O'Neal represent the plaintiff. Hansbrough is a conductor on the Illinois Central railroad and formerly lived in Paducah. The Paducah Sun, Paducah, Kentucky, Tuesday Evening, January 30, 1906
. . . . . . . . . .
Buried Dog Not a Nuisance. Judge Declines to Order Removal from Fashionable Cemetery. Louisville, Ky., March 30. -- Judge Shackelford Miller today handed down an opinion in the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, in which he decides that the court will not interfere to enforce the removal of a dog buried in Cave Hill Cemetery because the plaintiff regards such an interment as a nuisance and dislikes the idea of some day being buried near the canine tenant of the graveyard.
The defendant buried "Billy Hansbrough," a pet fox terrier, in her lot in Cave Hill, and the plaintiff sought to have the body removed. Judge Miller said:
"The injury done here is to the living plaintiff, who expects to be buried in his lot at some future time. It consists in his distress of mind in contemplating his daughter's present burial and his own prospective interment in a lot adjoining that in which Billy lies buried. If this be an injury to person or property, it is too incapable of being measured to invoke action by the court. If the claim of right here asserted be permitted to control it would prevent the burial of any one -- a murderer or a suicide, for instance -- whose grave might be objectionable to neighboring lot owners.
"That matter is in control of the cemetery company. An unburied dog, either alive or dead, may be a nuisance per se, but a dead dog, well buried, as in this case, is not a nuisance per se, and can not become one." Dallas Morning News, April 1, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Dog's Grave. Canine Must Not Be Buried in Cemetery. Frankfort, Ky., 24. -- The Court of Appeals reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, W.G. Hansbrough and Ada Hansbrough from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Louisville, and the latter will be compelled to remove from their lot in Cave Hill Cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. Hertle sought to enjoin the defendants and compel them to remove the carcass of the dog after learning that it had been interred on a plot adjoining his family lot in the cemetery. Hopkinsville Kentuckian, Saturday / Tuesday, December 24, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Must Remove Dog's Carcass. The court of appeals Thursday reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alide Riddle et al. of Louisville, Ky., and the latter will be compelled to remove from a lot in Cave Hill cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. The Riddle plot adjoins Hertle's. Sioux County Herald, Orange City, Iowa, December 25, 1907.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Fox terrier. Beloved family pet.
. . . . . . . . . .
Effort Being Made to Compel Removal of Conductor Hansbro's Dog "Billy Y." An injunction suit to comple the removal of "Billy Hansbrough," the dog which was buried in Cave Hill cemetery several months ago, was filed here yesterday by Henry Hertle, the owner of the lot adjoining the one upon which the dog was buried. The defendants are Alice Riddle, who owns the lot where the dog was placed, and W.Y. and Ada Hansbrough, the owners of the dog, and the Cave Hill Cemetery company.
"Billy Hansbrough" was a much-beloved member of the Hansbrough family, and he came to an untimely end by falling into quick lime. After his demise Mrs. Hansbrough had his picture published in the papers at advertising rates and flourishing obituary notices of his many virtues. He was then laid to rest in the Riddle lot.
Mr. Hertle objects to the dog's burial there, claiming that it constitutes a nuisance. His daughter is interred in his lot.
The petition says that the regulations of the cemetery company provide that the grounds are to be used only for "members of the white race." Billy, it is urged, did not come within this classification.
It is further set forth that the cemetery company is willing that the dog be removed, but that the owner of the lot and the Hansbroughs object. There is no specific statute in Kentucky covering this point and the plaintiff relies on a code provision which applies to nuisances. In the history of modern jurisprudence no similar case can be found. O'Neal & O'Neal represent the plaintiff. Hansbrough is a conductor on the Illinois Central railroad and formerly lived in Paducah. The Paducah Sun, Paducah, Kentucky, Tuesday Evening, January 30, 1906
. . . . . . . . . .
Buried Dog Not a Nuisance. Judge Declines to Order Removal from Fashionable Cemetery. Louisville, Ky., March 30. -- Judge Shackelford Miller today handed down an opinion in the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, in which he decides that the court will not interfere to enforce the removal of a dog buried in Cave Hill Cemetery because the plaintiff regards such an interment as a nuisance and dislikes the idea of some day being buried near the canine tenant of the graveyard.
The defendant buried "Billy Hansbrough," a pet fox terrier, in her lot in Cave Hill, and the plaintiff sought to have the body removed. Judge Miller said:
"The injury done here is to the living plaintiff, who expects to be buried in his lot at some future time. It consists in his distress of mind in contemplating his daughter's present burial and his own prospective interment in a lot adjoining that in which Billy lies buried. If this be an injury to person or property, it is too incapable of being measured to invoke action by the court. If the claim of right here asserted be permitted to control it would prevent the burial of any one -- a murderer or a suicide, for instance -- whose grave might be objectionable to neighboring lot owners.
"That matter is in control of the cemetery company. An unburied dog, either alive or dead, may be a nuisance per se, but a dead dog, well buried, as in this case, is not a nuisance per se, and can not become one." Dallas Morning News, April 1, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Dog's Grave. Canine Must Not Be Buried in Cemetery. Frankfort, Ky., 24. -- The Court of Appeals reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, W.G. Hansbrough and Ada Hansbrough from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Louisville, and the latter will be compelled to remove from their lot in Cave Hill Cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. Hertle sought to enjoin the defendants and compel them to remove the carcass of the dog after learning that it had been interred on a plot adjoining his family lot in the cemetery. Hopkinsville Kentuckian, Saturday / Tuesday, December 24, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Must Remove Dog's Carcass. The court of appeals Thursday reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alide Riddle et al. of Louisville, Ky., and the latter will be compelled to remove from a lot in Cave Hill cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. The Riddle plot adjoins Hertle's. Sioux County Herald, Orange City, Iowa, December 25, 1907.
. . . . . . . . . .
Fox terrier. Beloved family pet.
. . . . . . . . . .
Effort Being Made to Compel Removal of Conductor Hansbro's Dog "Billy Y." An injunction suit to comple the removal of "Billy Hansbrough," the dog which was buried in Cave Hill cemetery several months ago, was filed here yesterday by Henry Hertle, the owner of the lot adjoining the one upon which the dog was buried. The defendants are Alice Riddle, who owns the lot where the dog was placed, and W.Y. and Ada Hansbrough, the owners of the dog, and the Cave Hill Cemetery company.
"Billy Hansbrough" was a much-beloved member of the Hansbrough family, and he came to an untimely end by falling into quick lime. After his demise Mrs. Hansbrough had his picture published in the papers at advertising rates and flourishing obituary notices of his many virtues. He was then laid to rest in the Riddle lot.
Mr. Hertle objects to the dog's burial there, claiming that it constitutes a nuisance. His daughter is interred in his lot.
The petition says that the regulations of the cemetery company provide that the grounds are to be used only for "members of the white race." Billy, it is urged, did not come within this classification.
It is further set forth that the cemetery company is willing that the dog be removed, but that the owner of the lot and the Hansbroughs object. There is no specific statute in Kentucky covering this point and the plaintiff relies on a code provision which applies to nuisances. In the history of modern jurisprudence no similar case can be found. O'Neal & O'Neal represent the plaintiff. Hansbrough is a conductor on the Illinois Central railroad and formerly lived in Paducah. The Paducah Sun, Paducah, Kentucky, Tuesday Evening, January 30, 1906
. . . . . . . . . .
Buried Dog Not a Nuisance. Judge Declines to Order Removal from Fashionable Cemetery. Louisville, Ky., March 30. -- Judge Shackelford Miller today handed down an opinion in the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, in which he decides that the court will not interfere to enforce the removal of a dog buried in Cave Hill Cemetery because the plaintiff regards such an interment as a nuisance and dislikes the idea of some day being buried near the canine tenant of the graveyard.
The defendant buried "Billy Hansbrough," a pet fox terrier, in her lot in Cave Hill, and the plaintiff sought to have the body removed. Judge Miller said:
"The injury done here is to the living plaintiff, who expects to be buried in his lot at some future time. It consists in his distress of mind in contemplating his daughter's present burial and his own prospective interment in a lot adjoining that in which Billy lies buried. If this be an injury to person or property, it is too incapable of being measured to invoke action by the court. If the claim of right here asserted be permitted to control it would prevent the burial of any one -- a murderer or a suicide, for instance -- whose grave might be objectionable to neighboring lot owners.
"That matter is in control of the cemetery company. An unburied dog, either alive or dead, may be a nuisance per se, but a dead dog, well buried, as in this case, is not a nuisance per se, and can not become one." Dallas Morning News, April 1, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Dog's Grave. Canine Must Not Be Buried in Cemetery. Frankfort, Ky., 24. -- The Court of Appeals reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alice Riddle, W.G. Hansbrough and Ada Hansbrough from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Louisville, and the latter will be compelled to remove from their lot in Cave Hill Cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. Hertle sought to enjoin the defendants and compel them to remove the carcass of the dog after learning that it had been interred on a plot adjoining his family lot in the cemetery. Hopkinsville Kentuckian, Saturday / Tuesday, December 24, 1907
. . . . . . . . . .
Must Remove Dog's Carcass. The court of appeals Thursday reversed the case of Henry Hertle against Alide Riddle et al. of Louisville, Ky., and the latter will be compelled to remove from a lot in Cave Hill cemetery the body of a dog buried there several months ago. The Riddle plot adjoins Hertle's. Sioux County Herald, Orange City, Iowa, December 25, 1907.
. . . . . . . . . .
Sponsored by Ancestry
Advertisement
Advertisement
