parliamentary session for the year, from causing or permitting the sewage of the borough of L- or any part thereof to flow or pass through their main sewer or any other outfall into the river A- in the information (statement of claim) mentioned, unless and until the same shall be sufficiently purified and deodorised so as not to be or create a nuisance, or become injurious to the public health; And Let the Defts, the said mayor &c., be perpetually restrained by injunction from causing or permitting any new outfall to be made for the conveyance of the sewage of the said borough or any part thereof into the river A-, or any sewer or drain to be made to communicate with their said main sewer, or any communication to be made with such main sewer, or any of the Defts' other sewers and drains whereby any sewage may be discharged or find its way into the said river A--Defts to pay the relator's costs of suit, including the costs of the motion for an injunction.-Liberty to apply.-A. G. v. Leeds Corp., V.-C. J., 2 March, 1870, A. 527; L. J., 9 June, 1870, A. 1493; 5 Ch. 583.

For order restraining Defts from making any further connection of any drain with either their H. or M. sewer until the hearing &c.; that part of the motion which sought an immediate injunction against causing any sewage to pass down the H. and M. sewer into the river L. being directed to stand over until the hearing, on an undertaking by Defts, by dredging or other proper means, to keep the river L. free from all obstructions to navigation caused by an increased deposit of sewage matter, with liberty to apply especially in respect of any injury that might be apprehended from unhealthy effluvia, see A. G. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 H. & M. 298, V.-C. W., 5 June, 1863, A. 1031.

For injunction to restrain local board from "directing or authorizing" the discharge of sewage from new houses in their district into a natural watercourse, the lower portion of which was a sewer vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, see A. G. v. Acton Local Board, 22 Nov. 1882, A. 2196; 22 Ch. D. 221.

For injunction to restrain local board from discharging, or causing or permitting to be discharged, sewage or other offensive matter into a brook or watercourse so as to cause nuisance to the Plt (it being shown that it was possible for the board to abate the nuisance by physical means), see Charles v. Finchley Local Board, 23 Ch. D. 767; 8 May, 1883, A. 716. As to whether the expression "permitting" can be rightly used in these cases, see notes, inf. p. 620.

2. Similar Order.

LET the Defts, the mayor &c., of H-, their servants &c., be restrained from causing or permitting to be made any new outfall into the brook H-, or any new sewer communicating with any outfall into such brook, or any drain or other communication with any such sewer, whereby any sewage water may pass into the H-brook; And Let also the said Defts, their servants &c., be (from and after the - day of restrained from causing or permitting the sewage of the borough of HI- to flow or pass through outfall sewer A— or outfull sewer Bin the (information and bill) mentioned, or any new outfall into the said brook, unless and until the same shall be sufficiently purified and deodorised.-Defts to pay costs of suit.-A. G, v. Halifax Corp.,

-

V.-C. J., 8 July, 1869, A. 2040; 17 W. R. 1088. (See words added in A. G. v. Corp. of Leeds, sup., Form 1.)

The form of this order has been often adopted in similar cases: see North Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Tunstall Local Board, 39 L. J. Ch. 131.

For an interlocutory injunction against opening any new drains by which any additional matter may be brought down, and from executing any works whereby the damage may be increased, see A. G. v. Luton Board, V.-C. W., 2 Jur. N. S. 180.

For order to restrain Defts from allowing any sewage to pass into the stream or otherwise, so as to become a nuisance, the operation of the order being suspended, see A. G. v. Heath, V.-C. W., 25 Nov. 1867, A. 3087.

For order restraining a local board from allowing any fresh communications to be made with a sewer constructed by their predecessors in office, which caused a nuisance to the inhabitants of the adjoining parish by draining into a stream flowing through their parish, unless such drainage should have been first purified from sewage matter, so as not to occasion any pollution to the stream in its passage through such parish, see A. G. v. Richmond, 2 Eq. 306.

For injunction to restrain the corp. of Bradford from causing or permitting any new outfall into the Bradford beck, or any new sewer communicating with any outfall into it, "whereby any sewage not effectually defecated shall pass into the river Aire so as to be a nuisance to the Plt," see Stansfield v. Corp. of Bradford, M. R., 5 March, 1875, B. 492.

For the like order restraining a local board from causing or permitting any sewage, filth, or offensive matter, solid or liquid, to be discharged, or to flow or pass into a brook-through any sewer, drain, or culvert within the district to the injury of, or which may be or become a nuisance to Plts, see Birmingham Canal Co. v. Burman, V.-C. B., 25 Nov. 1872, B. 3032 (operation of order suspended for two months); and see S. C., before Kay, J., 63

L. T. 670.

For the like order, see Harrold v. Markham (Northampton case), V.-C. J., 16 July, 1869, A. 2411 (operation suspended until 1st June, 1870).

For the like order on motion for decree, see Bidder v. Richards, V.-C. W., 14 Jan. 1862, A. 109 (Croydon case).

For like injunction against the Governors of the County Lunatic Asylum at Colney Hatch, see A. G. v. The Colney Hatch Asylum, C. A., 22 Dec. 1868, A. 3187; 4 Ch. 146.

For injunction to restrain Defts from permitting the drainage from additional cottages or any buildings other than four old cottages to drain into a brook, see Metropolitan Board of Works v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., 14 Ch. D. 521; 17 Ch. D. 246, C. A.

For injunction in the terms of an agreement by which the Defts agreed with Plt that they would not after the day of, "cause or permit the drains of the district under their control, or any of them, to discharge, nor shall they after that date discharge into the stream or watercourses flowing into the Oak beck, as in the pleadings mentioned, or into the said Oak beck, any sewage, sewage matters, or foul water whatsoever, or otherwise foul or pollute the water of the Oak beck," with inquiry as to damages occasioned to Plt in the operation of bleaching, and directions for payment of amount ascertained, and costs of suit, see Wood v. Harrogate Commissioners, V.-C. B., 3 June, 1874, B. 2497.

An inquiry, as in Heath v. Wallington, V.-C. W., 3 July, 1865, A. 1639, how the sewage can be dealt with so as not to occasion a nuisance to Plt, should not, it seems, be directed: see A. G. v. Colney Hutch Lunatic Asylum, 4 Ch. p. 162.

For judgment dismissing without costs action against vestry for pollution of watercourse by sewage, on the Defts by their counsel undertaking not to sanction the connection of any further houses with any drains running into either of the watercourses in the pleadings mentioned, see A. G. v. St. James, Clerkenwell, North, J., 21 July, 1891, A. 1077; (1891) 3 Ch. 527.

For dismissal of action for injunction in respect of apprehended nuisance, but without prejudice to the right of the Plt to bring another action thereafter, in case of actual injury, or imminent danger, see Fletcher v. Bealey, 28 Ch. D. 688.

3. Injunction against "directing or authorizing" Discharge of

Sewage.

LET the Defts, the mayor &c. of the borough of &c., as the urban sanitary authority of the said borough, be restrained from directing or authorizing any sewage or foul matter to flow or to be discharged from sewers or drains vested in them as such sanitary authority on to D- Park in the pleadings mentioned.-See Brown v. Dunstable Corp., Cozens-Hardy, J., 19 May, 1899, A. 2032, (1899) 2 Ch. 378.

4. Pollution of Stream by Manufacturing Works.

LET the Defts, The S. Papermaking Co. (Ld.), their servants &c., be perpetually restrained from discharging from their works in the Plt's (bill) mentioned into the river or stream in the said (bill) also mentioned (so as to cause it to flow to the Plt's lands, messuages, and mills therein also mentioned, in a state less pure than that in which it flowed there previously to the establishment of the said works, to the injury of the Plt), any such refuse or other matter as was discharged by the Defts from their said works into the said river or stream previously to the (filing of the said bill) or any noxious fluid or other foul matters whatsoever.-Lingwood v. Stowmarket, &c. Co., V.-C. W., 15 Nov. 1865, B. 2220; 1 Eq. 77.

On motion to commit in this case inquiries were subsequently directed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the pouring into the stream, at the point where Deft's drain entered it, of a liquid of the same composition as that analysed by Dr. S. on behalf of Plt, would be sufficient to cause the pollution of water complained of at Plt's mill: S. C., 24 Jan. 1868, B. 255.

For order to stay pollution of stream above or within the limits of Plt's land, see Crossley v. Lightowler, L. C., 2 May, 1867, A. 1259, 2 Ch. 478.

For declaration that the Defts' Act did not legalise the fouling of a stream below a reservoir or store of water thereby authorized, and for injunction to stay them from so storing and discharging the water as to foul the water of the stream to the damage or injury of the owners and occupiers of Plt's dye works, see Clowes v. South Staffordshire Waterworks, 8 Ch. 125.

5. Inquiry as to Pollution from a given Date.

LET the following &c.: 1. An inquiry whether the matters now passing into T- brook from the M- mills cause any and what greater pollution, to the injury of the Plt, than was caused to the then owner of S-mills by the matters passing into the brook from Mmills immediately before the- day of

2. An inquiry whether

Plt is entitled to any and what compensation in damages from Deft in respect of any nuisance occasioned to Plt before the completion of Deft's recent works by matters passing from the M- mills in excess of the matter passing into the brook from the M— mills immediately before the said day of Adjourn &c.—Cummins v. Herron, V.-C. W., 10 Dec. 1872, A. 3130.

For leave to apply in case of any subsequent pollution of a canal by

sewage, Defts having, since information filed, diverted the sewage from the canal, and inquiry as to damages, see A. G. v. Basingstoke Corp., V.-C. H., 31 May, 1876, A. 1462; 24 W. R. 817.

NOTES.

The jurisdiction of restraining by summary order offences in respect of river pollution was by the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V. c. 75), ss. 10, 11, for the first time given to the county courts. But the jurisdiction which has been largely exercised by the Court of Chancery (and now by the Ch. Div) of restraining the pouring of sewage and other filth or refuse into a river so as to create a nuisance, has not been materially affected.

Injunctions have been obtained on behalf of the public (by information), see A. G. v. Leeds Corp., 5 Ch. 583, sup. Form 1, p. 615.

-on behalf of the public, and also of a riparian owner (by information and bill): see A. G. v. Halifax Corp., 17 W. R. 1088; 39 L. J. Ch. 129; 21 L. T. 52, sup., Form 2, p. 616; A. G. v. Birmingham Council, 4 K. & J. 528; A. G. v. Luton Board, 2 Jur. N. S. 180; -or on behalf of the riparian owner alone (by bill): Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Commrs, 1 Eq. 161; 1 Ch. 349; Spokes v. Banbury Board, 35 L. J. Ch. 105; L. R. 1 Eq. 42; affirmed 11 Jur. N. S. 1010; 13 L. T. 453; 14 W. R. 169; Crossley v. Lightowler, 3 Eq. 279; 2 Ch. 478; Baxendale v. McMurray, 2 Ch. 790; Holt v. Rochdale Corp., 18 W. R. 885; 39 L. J. Ch. 761; 10 Eq. 354; 25 L. T. 43 ; Bidder v. Croydon Local Board, 6 L. T. 778.

If the effect of drainage works has been to pollute the stream into which they fall, the fact that the local authority (or person) are using the best means in their power, or known to science, for purifying and deodorising the sewago or filth before passing it into the stream, has not saved them from the operation of an injunction, although their efforts to neutralize the evil have been taken into favourable consideration upon applications to suspend the operation of the injunction, or even upon motion to commit for breach of the injunction: A. G. v. Birmingham Council, 4 K. & J. 528; S. C., in a subsequent suit, 19 W. R. 561; A. G. v. Bradford Canal, 2 Eq. 71; A. G. v. Leeds Corp., 5 Ch. 583; Bidder v. Croydon Local Board, 6 L. T. 778.

In the absence of express power to create a nuisance, public bodies executing drainage works for the benefit of their district were bound to construct them so as not to create any nuisance nor to interfere with the right of the riparian owner to the enjoyment of pure water: A. G. v. Colney Hatch, 4 Ch. 146; A. G. v. Halifax Corp., 17 W. R. 1088; Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Commrs, 1 Eq. 161; 1 Ch. 349; Cator v. Lewisham Local Board, 5 B. & S. 115; Geddis v. Bann Reservoir, 3 App. Ca. 430; Bligh v. Rathangan Drainage Board (1898), 2 I. R. 205.

And see Public Health Act, 1875, s. 17, to the effect that local authorities are not authorized to send sewage or filthy water into any natural stream or watercourse, or into any canal, pond, or lake, until such sewage or filthy water is freed from all excrementitious or other foul or noxious matter, such as would affect or deteriorate the purity or quality of the water in such stream, &c.

Under this enactment a local board has been restrained from transgressing their powers by discharging sewage into a stream so as to affect the water at the point of outfall, although no case of actual nuisance had been established: A. G. v. Cockermouth Local Board, 18 Eq. 172; but under the powers of ss. 15 and 16 the local authority may discharge into a stream surface water conveyed by surface sewers though it carries down sand and silt, such water not being sewage or filthy water" within s. 17: Durrant v. Branksome Urban District Council, (1897) 2 Ch. 291, C. A. And see A. G. v. Shrewsbury, &c. Bridge Co., 21 Ch. D. 754, as to the right of action by A. G. on behalf of public to restrain illegal acts tending to injury of public, without evidence of actual injury.

But if parliamentary powers to drain, &c. cannot be executed without causing some nuisance, the Court has declined to interfere (A. G. v. Thames Conservators, 1 H. & M. 1), unless the works, though within the statutory powers, occasion injury from their negligent and unskilful construction: A. G. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 H. & M. 298. Where the nuisance has not been caused or increased by any act on the part of the local board, but has arisen merely from delay or neglect in providing a proper system of drainage, the remedy is not by injunction indirectly, but by mandamus directly compelling a performance of the statutory powers: Glossop v. Heston Local Board, 12 Ch. D. 102, C. A.; A. G. v. Dorking Guardians, 20 Ch. D. 595, C. A.; Warwick and Birmingham Canal Navigation v. Burman, 63 L. T. 670; A. G. v. Clerkenwell Vestry, (1891) 3 Ch. 527.

And in view of the absolute right conferred on a householder by 8. 21 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to connect their drains with a sewer subject only to the regulations duly prescribed by the local authority, see Ainley v. Kirkheaton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 221; Graham v. Wroughton, 70 L. J. Ch. 673, the Court refused to restrain a local board from "permitting" sewage to pass into a natural watercourse, where such an injunction might compel them to stop up drains or sewers which had been made from houses in their district: A. G. v. Acton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 221; A. G. v. Clerkenwell Vestry, sup.; Brown v. Dunstable Corporation, (1899) 2 Ch. 378, where the Defts were simply restrained from "directing or authorizing" any sewage or foul matter to flow or to be discharged from sewers vested in them on to the Plt's lands; secus, where the board had power physically to stop the flow of sewage complained of: Charles v. Finchley Local Board, 23 Ch. D.767; but see this case observed upon in Brown v. Dunstable Corporation, sup.

A prescriptive right to drain through a sewer does not confer a right to pour in as much sewage as the sewer will hold, and an excessive user may be restrained: Metropolitan Board of Works v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., 17 Ch. D. 246, C. A.; and see A. G. v. Acton Local Board, sup.; Charles v. Finchley Local Board, sup.

But the right may extend to the discharge of trade and manufacturing effluents into the public sewer: Eastwood v. Honley Urban Council, (1900) 1 Ch. 701; (1901) 1 Ch. 645, C. A.; Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban Council, (1897) 1 Q. B. 384 (per Charles, J.).

As to the effect of the exception from s. 13 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (vesting sewers in the local authority), of "a sewer made by any person for his own profit," see Sykes v. Sowerby District Council, (1900) 1 Q. B. 584, C. A.; Croysdale v. Sunbury-on-Thames District Council, (1898) 2 Ch. 515; Vowles v. Colmer, W. N. (1895) 42; 64 L. J. Ch. 414; Minehead Local Board v. Luttrell, (1894) 2 Ch. 178; Ferrand v. Hallas Land and Building Co., (1893) 2 Q. B. 135, C. A.; Bonella v. Twickenham Board of Health; Holmes v. The Same, 24 Q. B. D. 63, C. A.; Acton Local Board v. Batten, 28 Ch. D. 283.

The duty of a local board to keep their sewers so as not to be a nuisance is not absolute, but they are bound to use all reasonable care and diligence; Bateman v. Poplar Board of Works, 37 Ch. D. 272; and an injunction will not be granted if they could not, with reasonable care, have discovered that a drain was a sewer for which they were responsible: S. C.

Considerations of expense and inconvenience to the local board, or the interests of a large and increasing population, as contrasted with the health and property of individual owners, have not been allowed to affect the right to relief by injunction. A local board, in performing their statutory duties, must do so without doing injury to their neighbours, or throwing upon them any additional burden: A. G. v. Acton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 222. And if, after all possible experiments, the town or district cannot be drained without causing private injury, the local board must, it has been stated, apply to Parliament for further powers, authorizing them to take the land of the person injured, or to commit the nuisance: see A. G. v. Colney Hatch, 4 Ch. 146; A. G. v. Luton Board, 2 Jur. N. S. 180; A. G. v. Birmingham Council, 4 K. & J. 528; A. G. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 H. & M. 298; Spokes v. Banbury Local Board, 1 Eq. 42.

But to induce the Court to interfere, on the ground of individual injury, with the carrying out a great public undertaking, such as the drainage of a town, there must be a case of serious and permanent damage, actual or