471, 50 A.2d 275, where this Court said (page 474): "This case is ruled by the principle set forth in Section 339 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts, which we adopted in Thompson v. We agree with the court below that the evidence was entirely insufficient to establish this dump as a playground and that a dumping ground for ashes and refuse does not constitute an attractive nuisance: Cf. The evidence also disclosed that since 1946, a fire had often been seen burning in some part of the dump, although not where the injury occurred. There was ample evidence that children went to the dump several times a week during vacation periods and on holidays for the purpose of picking *120 up funny books, toys, junk, rags and similar objects and that occasionally boys shot rats there. There was no testimony that the township had started the fire, or had actual knowledge that any fire was smouldering underneath the surface and the dangerous condition was undoubtedly a latent one. The surface appeared to him and to other witnesses to be solid and no fire or smoke or hot coals were visible at the point of the accident until after the surface gave way. There were hot coals on the bottom and he was burned about his legs and hands. Sterling walked on the left hand side of the dump to find the funny books when the surface suddenly gave way underneath him and he sank through the refuse almost up to his neck. There was a fire on the right hand side of the dump about thirty feet away and smoke was issuing from the ground ten feet away. and went to the dump for the the purpose of getting some funny books. On July 28, 1949, Sterling Rush left his home with his brother at approximately 3 o'clock p.m. The dump was approximately one mile distant from plaintiffs' home and from any other habitation. The township as well as other people of the community dumped refuse and garbage into this excavation or dump, commencing sometime during 1946.
The dump covered about a quarter of a city block and had originally been a strip mining hole. Sterling Rush, aged 7, by Francis Rush, his guardian, and Francis Rush in his own right, brought an action in trespass against the Township of Plains to recover damages for burns and other injuries sustained by Sterling on a refuse and garbage dump leased and maintained by the Township. 180, 87 A.2d 183, properly entered in this case? Was a nonsuit viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs: Davies v. *118 Before DREW, C.J., STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY and MUSMANNO, JJ.