Fire-Works

A contrivance of inflammable and explosive materials combined of various proportions for the purpose of producing in combustion beautiful or amusing scenic effects, or to be used as a night signal on land or sea, or for various purposes in war. Cent. Diet Percussion caps for signalling railway trains are held to be explosive preparations, although the court considered they were not “fireworks” as the latter term is known to commerce; 3 B. & S. 128. Under a clause in an insurance policy forbidding the keeping of gunpowder, fireworks are not prohibited; Tischler v. Ins. Co., 66 Cal. 178, 4 Pac. 1169. Where a display of fireworks was made by private persons, under a permit given by the mayor, the city was held liable for injuries on the ground that it consented to a nuisance; Speir V. City of Brooklyn, 139 N. Y. 6, 34 N. E. 727, 21 L. R. A. 641, 36 Am. St. Rep. 664; followed Landau v. City of New York, 180 N. T. 48, 72 N. E. 631, 105 Am. St Rep. 709. The liability of the town for such injuries has been denied, however, on the ground that the act was a simple violation of an ordinance; Ball v. Town of Woodbine, 61 la. 83, 15 N. W. 846, 47 Am. Rep. 805; Aron V. City of Wausau, 98 Wis. 592, 74 N. W. 354, 40 L. R. A. 733; and.a borough would not be liable for the negligence of its police officers in permitting unlawful acts; Borough of Norristown v. Fitzpatrick, 94 Pa. 121, 89 Am. Rep. 771; Morehead Banking Co. V. Morehead, 116 N. C. 413, 21 S. E. 191; Bartlett v. Town of Clarksburg, 46 W. Va. 393, 31 S. B. 918, 43 L. R. A. 295, 72 Am. St Rep. 817. It is not contributory negligence to be present at exhibitions of fireworks; Mullins V. Blaise, 37 La. Ann. 92; Bradley v. Andrews, 61 Vt. 630; contra. Frost v. Josselyn, 180 Mass. 889, 62 N. E. 469. See IiTSUBAiroE; Risks and Pebils; Causa Pboxima non Remota Spectatub. tenant A sufficient allowance of wood to bum in a house. 1 Washb. R. P. 99. Tenant for life or years is entitled to it; 2 Bla. Com. 35. Cutting more than is needed for present use is waste; 3 Dane, Abr. 238; Sackett v. Sackett, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 312; Cro. Eliz. 593; 7 Bingh. 640. The rules in England and in this country are diffei'ent in relation to the kind of trees which the tenant may cut; Padelford v. Padelford, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 152; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227, 5 Am. Dec. 258; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 22 N. J. L. 521; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180; Mc Cullough v. Irvine’s Ex’rs, 13 Pa. 438; 3 Leon. 16.