NUISANCES ; DISEASED AND DEAD ANIMALS. 361 



aration for the market or for slaughtering as may become of- 

 fensive to the senses." ^®^ 



A company avithorized to use their railway for cattle traffic 

 and to buy lands for such purposes are not liable for the noise 

 of cattle and drovers which otherwise would constitute a nui- 

 sance to the occupiers of land near their station. ^"^ And the 

 fact that a stockyards company by transporting stock 

 through a city creates a nuisance does not justify the city in 

 removing the tracks and destroying the value of the entire 

 road, where the charter authorizes the company to transport 

 property of every kind.^'^" Where the erection and use of 

 stock-pens cause annoyance of a permanent character to the 

 adjoining residents, the measure of damages is the difference 

 in the value of property with and without such annoyance.^^^ 



91. Racing and Betting — ^The subject of betting on races 

 is one that has been much exploited in judicial decisions and 

 about which there have been great differences of opinion. It 

 seerris to be generally admitted that at the common law a 

 wager on a horse-race was not illegal f^ and this doctrine 

 has been followed in some modern cases. ^^^ But this is con- 

 trary to the general tendency of the later cases which are dis- 

 posed to hold such a wager to be illegal and immoral.^''* In 



"* Long V. Portland (Ind.), 51 N. E. Rep. 917. 



^"London, Brighton & S. C. R. Co. v. Truman, 11 App. Cas. 45. 



"° Chicago V. Union Stockyards & T. Co., 164 111. 224. And see, as to 

 municipal power over stockyards as nuisances, 38 L. R. A. 655 n. 



'" Denison & P. S. R. Co. v. O'Maley (Tex. Civ. App.), 45 S. W. Rep. 

 227. 



"^ See McAllester v. Haden, 2 Camp. 438; Gibbons v. Gouverneur, i 

 Denio (N. Y.) 170; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532. 



As to what constitutes a "race meeting" within the meaning of a statute 

 limiting its length, etc., see State v. Forsythe (Ind.), 44 N. E. Rep. 593. 



™ See Barret v. Hampton, 2 Brev. (S. C.) 226; Grayson v. Whatley, 

 15 La. Ann. 525; Walker v. Armstrong, 54 Tex. 609; Com. v. Shelton, 

 S Gratt (Va.) 592; Challand v. Bray, i Dowl. P. R. N. S. 783- 



"* See Gridley v. Dorn, 57 Cal. 78; Odell v. Atlanta, 97 Ga. 670; Morgan 

 ■V. Beaumont, I2i Mass. 7; Wilkinson v. Tousley, 16 Minn. 299; Corson 

 1'. Neatheny, 9 Colo. 212; Cheesum v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 332; McLain 



