pavilion; that while so bathing the said to the said pavilion as aforesaid; that said Mary E. Proctor remained within the limit waters aforesaid were the waters customaof the waters of said Atlantic ocean, which rily used by the patrons of said bath house, constituted defendant's facilities for bath- which the defendant well knew; that on, to ing as aforesaid; that the defendant negli- wit, July 7, A. D. 1912, one Mary E. Proctor gently and carelessly failed to provide and did rent from said defendant a bathing suit maintain proper and safe lines and life for a valuable consideration in that behalf; rafts for the protection of its patrons, that it was the intention of the said Mary bathers at the said seaside resort, contrary E. Proctor, which the defendant then and to the statutes of the state of Florida in there well knew, then and there to bathe in such cases made and provided; that by rea- the waters of the Atlantic ocean adjacent son thereof, and by reason of the careless- to which the defendant's said bath house ness and negligence of the defendant, the and bathing pavilion was located, and which said Mary E. Proctor was then and there waters constituted the facilities for bathdrowned in the waters of the Atlantic ocean ing offered to defendant's patrons as aforenear the bath house and bathing pavilion said; that thereupon the said Mary E. of the defendant, and while within the Proctor did bathe in said Atlantic ocean waters of the Atlantic ocean in which the adjacent to said bath house and pavilion; defendant invited patrons to bathe; that that while so bathing the said Mary E. the said Mary E. Proctor died leaving Proctor remained within the limit of the neither husband nor minor child or children, waters of said Atlantic océan which constinor any person or persons dependent upon tuted defendant's facilities as aforesaid; her, the said Mary E. Proctor, for support; that the defendant negligently and carethat the said Louise McKinney, plaintiff, lessly failed to provide suitable and proper was heretofore, on, to wit, the 17th day of persons to superintend and watch over bathJuly, 1912, duly appointed as administra- ing in the waters customarily used by the trix of the estate of Mary E. Proctor. patrons of said bath house, and in which "Wherefore, the plaintiff brings this her waters deceased was bathing, and to watch suit and claims $50,000 damages.

"(2) And the plaintiff by her attorneys in this the second count of her second amended declaration, sues W. H. Adams, defendant, for that heretofore, on, to wit, July 7, A. D. 1912, the said defendant was operating and maintaining a certain public bath house and bathing pavilion where bathing suits were furnished for hire or rent at Pablo Beach, a seaside resort in the state of Florida, situated in the county of Duval and state of Florida; that the defendant had exclusive control and management of said bath house and bathing pavilion; that said bath house and bathing pavilion was situated at or near the waters of the Atlantic ocean at said Pablo Beach; that said defendant extended an invitation to the public to rent from him bathing suits, and to avail themselves of the dressing rooms and kindred facilities of the defendant at said pavilion; that the waters of the Atlantic ocean situated directly in front of said pavilion and bath house, and extending up and down the beach for a space of a few hundred feet on either side of said point directly in front of said bath house and pavilion, were the facilities for bathing which the defendant offered to the patrons of his bath house and bathing pavilion; that said defendant, by renting said bathing suits, invited such members of the public as rented bathing suits from him to avail themselves of the facilities aforementioned for bathing, and to bathe in the waters of the Atlantic ocean in front of and adjacent

over and superintend its (defendant's) patrons who were bathing in such waters; that by reason thereof, and by reason of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, the said Mary E. Proctor was then and there drowned in the waters of the Atlantic ocean near the bath house and bathing pavilion of the defendant, and while within the waters of the Atlantic ocean, in which the defendant invited its patrons to bathe; that the said Mary E. Proctor died leaving neither husband nor minor child or children nor any person or persons dependent upon her, the said Mary E. Proctor, for support; that the said Louise McKinney, plaintiff, was heretofore, on, to wit, the 17th day of July, 1912, duly appointed as administratrix of the estate of Mary E. Proctor.

"Wherefore the plaintiff brings this her suit, and claims $50,000 damages.

"(3) And the plaintiff by her attorneys, in this the third count of her second amended declaration, sues W. H. Adams, defendant, for that heretofore, on, to wit, July 7, A. D. 1912, the said defendant was operating and maintaining a certain public bath house and bathing pavilion where bathing suits were furnished for hire or rent at Pablo Beach, a seaside resort in the state of Florida, situated in the county of Duval and state of Florida; that the defendant had exclusive control and management of said bath house and bathing pavilion; that said bath house and bathing pavilion was situated at or near the waters of the At

a

"Wherefore the plaintiff brings this her suit and claims $50,000 damages.

lantic ocean at said Pablo Beach; that said | plaintiff, was heretofore, on, to wit, the defendant extended an invitation to the 17th day of July, 1912, duly appointed adpublic to rent from him bathing suits, and ministratrix of the estate of Mary E. Procto avail themselves of the dressing room tor. and kindred facilities of the defendant at said pavilion; that the waters of the Atlantic ocean situated directly in front of said "(4) And the plaintiff by her attorneys, pavilion and bath house, and extending up in this the fourth count of her second and down the beach for a space of a few amended declaration, sues W. H. Adams, hundred feet on either side of said point defendant, for that heretofore, on, to wit, directly in front of said bath house and pa- July 7, A. D. 1912, the said defendant was vilion, were the facilities for bathing which operating and maintaining a certain public the defendant offered to the patrons of his bath house and bathing pavilion where bath house and pavilion; that said defend- bathing suits were furnished for hire or rent ant, by renting said bathing suits, invited at Pablo Beach, a seaside resort in the state such members of the public as rented bath- of Florida, situated in the county of Duval ing suits from him to avail themselves of and state of Florida; that the defendant the facilities aforementioned for bathing, had exclusive control and management of and to bathe in the waters of the Atlantic said bath house and bathing pavilion at or ocean in front of and adjacent to the said near the waters of the Atlantic ocean at pavilion as aforesaid; that said waters said Pablo Beach; that said defendant exaforesaid were the waters customarily used tended an invitation to the public to rent by the patrons of said bath house, which the from him bathing suits, and to avail themdefendant well knew; that on, to wit, July selves of the dressing room and kindred fa7, A. D. 1912, one Mary E. Proctor did rent cilities of the defendant at said pavilion; from the said defendant a bathing suit for that the waters of the Atlantic ocean sitvaluable consideration in that behalf, uated directly in front of said pavilion and that it was the intention of the said Mary bath house, and extending up and down the E. Proctor, which the defendant then and beach for a space of a few hundred feet on there well knew, then and there to bathe either side of said point directly in front in the waters of the Atlantic ocean adja- of said bath house and pavilion, were the cent to which the defendant's said bath facilities for bathing which the defendant house and bathing pavilion was located, and offered to the patrons of his bath house and which waters constituted the facilities for bathing pavilion; that said defendant, by bathing offered to defendant's patrons as renting said bathing suits, invited such aforesaid; that thereupon the said Mary E. members of the public as rented bathing Proctor did bathe in said Atlantic ocean suits from him to avail themselves of the adjacent to said bath house and bathing pa- facilities aforementioned for bathing, and vilion; that while so bathing the said Mary to bathe in the waters of the Atlantic ocean E. Proctor remained within the limits of in front of and adjacent to the said pavilthe waters of said Atlantic ocean which ion as aforesaid; that said waters aforesaid constituted defendant's facilities for bath- were the waters customarily used by the ing as aforesaid; that the defendant negli- patrons of said bath house, which the degently and carelessly failed to provide fendant well knew; that on, to wit, July proper persons or appliances to rescue his 7, A. D. 1912, one Mary E. Proctor did rent patrons in the said waters customarily used from the said defendant a bathing suit for by his said patrons, which constituted the a valuable consideration in that behalf; facilities for bathing offered to such patrons that it was the intention of the said Mary by the defendant, and in which waters de- E. Proctor, which the defendant then and ceased was bathing, when such patrons were there well knew, then and there to bathe in or might have been in danger of drowning; the waters of the Atlantic ocean adjacent that by reason thereof, and by reason of to which the defendant's said bath house the carelessness and negligence of the de- and bathing pavilion was located, and which fendant, the said Mary E. Proctor was then waters constituted the facilities for bathing and there drowned in the waters of the At- offered to defendant's patrons as aforesaid; lantic ocean near the bath house and bath- that thereupon the said Mary E. Proctor ing pavilion of the defendant, and while did bathe in said Atlantic ocean adjacent to within the waters of the Atlantic ocean in said bath house and bathing pavilion; that which the defendant invited its patrons to while so bathing the said Mary E. Proctor bathe; that the said Mary E. Proctor died remained within the limit of the waters of leaving neither husband nor minor child or said Atlantic ocean which constituted dechildren, nor any person or persons depend- fendant's facilities for bathing as aforesaid; ent upon her, the said Mary E. Proctor, for that the defendant negligently and caresupport; that the said Louise McKinney, 'lessly failed to provide a proper person or

ocean.

"As to second count:

forth that at the time of the alleged renting the beach, and not in the waters of the of said bathing suit by the said Mary E. Proctor the defendant owned or operated any private bathing place where the deceased, Mary E. Proctor, at that time, intended to bathe, or did bathe.

"(2) Said count does not allege or set forth that the deceased paid a consideration for any right to bathe in the waters of the Atlantic ocean at said resort, but only alleges that she hired from defendant a certain bathing suit.

"(3) That there is no valid and constitutional statute of the state of Florida that required defendant to maintain life lines or life rafts for the protection of bathers or of deceased attempting to bathe in the Atlantic ocean.

"(1) As to the second count defendant repeats each of the grounds hereinabove mentioned, and in addition the following: "That there is no duty or obligation, statutory or otherwise, upon the defendant to provide a suitable person or persons to superintend bathing in the waters of the Atlantic ocean.

"(2) The said count does not show or set forth that the waters where deceased was bathing were the property of or controlled by or in the possession of the defendant.

"(3) That said counts show no duty or obligation of the defendant to the deceased at the time of said alleged drowning of deceased.

“(4) That the said statute referred to in said first count is in violation of the Constitution of the state of Florida and "(4) That the waters of the Atlantic of the Constitution of the United States, ocean were in no sense the premises of or in attempting to interfere with and restrict property of the defendant, and were not legitimate business, and deprives the per-under his control, and were not, as a matson engaged in the business of renting suits ter of law, facilities which the defendant of his property without due process of law, did or could provide to the deceased for and is a taking of such property without bathing purposes. due compensation.

"(5) The said statute is unconstitutional in that it undertakes to put a burden or tax upon said business therein mentioned not authorized by the Constitution of Florida.

"(6) That said statute of Florida referred to in said count does not provide or give private individuals any right of action, or provide any penalty to be paid to private individuals for failure to comply therewith.

"(7) That said statute referred to is in violation of the Constitution of the state of Florida, in that it undertakes to compel persons renting bathing suits to perform certain public duties, to wit, to provide safeguards to bathers.

"(8) That the said statute has no application to, and does not relate to, persons who themselves and of their own accord undertake to bathe in public waters, to wit, in the Atlantic ocean.

"(9) That the waters of the Atlantic ocean were in no sense the premises or property of the defendant, and were not under his control, and were not, as matter of law,

facilities which the defendant did or could provide to the deceased for bathing purposes.

"(10) That the said count fails to allege or show that the house of the defendant described as a pavilion and bath house was in the Atlantic ocean or immediately next to the waters of the Atlantic ocean, but alleges that same extended up and down

"(5) That said count fails to allege or show that the house of the defendant described as a pavilion or bath house was in the Atlantic ocean or immediately next to the waters of the Atlantic ocean, but alleges that same extended up and down the beach, and not in the waters of the ocean. "As to third count:

"(2) That said count states a conclusion in said allegation, to wit, that the defendant did not provide persons or appliances to rescue persons bathing in the waters customarily used by patrons of said bathing house.

"(3) That the said count does not show or set forth that the waters in which deceased was bathing were owned, possessed, or controlled by the defendant, but does show that they were public waters of the Atlantic ocean, not under the control of the defendant.

"(4) That said count shows no duty or obligation of the defendant to the deceased at the time of such alleged drowning of deceased.