and cleansing, they may make Bye-Laws (a) imposing such duty on the occupier of any such premises: also for the prevention of nuisances arising from snow, filth, dust, &c., or the keeping of animals so as to be injurious to the public health (21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 32). The Board shall drain, cleanse, cover, or fill up all ponds, ditches, and places containing drainage, filth, or offensive matter, or likely to be prejudicial to health, and give notice to the person causing such nuisance, or the owner or occupier of the premises, requiring him within a specified time to perform the necessary work; and in case of failure, the Board shall execute the same, at the expense of such person, recoverable in a summary manner, or as Private Improvement Expenses, or out of the District rates (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 58). Any person keeping any swine or pigstye in any dwelling-house, or so as to be a nuisance, or who suffers stagnant water to remain in any dwelling-house for twenty-four hours after notice from the Board to remove the same, or allows the contents of any watercloset, privy, or cesspool, to overflow or soak therefrom, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s., and 5s. a day during continuance of the offence; and the Board shall abate such nuisance at the expense of the occupier, recoverable in a summary manner. And if it appear to the Inspector of Nuisances that any manure or offensive matter ought to be removed, he is to give notice to the owner thereof, or the occupier of the premises, to remove the same; and if not removed within twenty-four hours the same is to be sold by the Board (s. 59) at the expense (if any beyond the proceeds) of the occupier, or, if none, the owner or the person causing the nuisance, recoverable in a summary manner, or as Private Improvement Expenses (21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 32). Houses in an unwholesome condition may be purified by the Board (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 60). [See "House Drainage."]

(a) See suggested forms for Bye Laws, p. 619. The Board have no power to make a bye-law not warranted by the terms of the statute, nor will the approval of the Secretary of State render valid such bye-law. (R. v. Wood, 5 E. & B. 49; same case, R. v. Rose, 24 L. J. M. C., 130.)

NUISANCES REMOVAL ACTS.

"Nuisance" (a) shall include any premises, pool, ditch, drain, ashpit, &c. animal, or accumulation, so kept as to be injurious to health (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 8). Notice of nuisance may be

(a) By the Common Law anything which causes injury to the neighbour · hood, or to the natural rights of property, is a nuisance. No actual injury need have happened, it is sufficient if the thing complained of be likely to produce it. (R. v. Vantandillo, 4 M. & S. 73.) Thus a building so constructed as to exclude light from other buildings previously existing; any Doxious manufacture polluting the air or water; the stoppage of a watercourse, &c., are nuisances. And it has been established by numerous decisions that no length of time will legitimate a public nuisance. The remedy is by indictment, or, in private nuisances, by action. (R. v. Pappineau, 1 Stra. 686; R. v. White, 1 Burr, 333.) But the nuisance may in certain cases be removed by the suffering party (Earl of Lonsdale v. Nelson, 2 Q. B. 311; Jones v. Williams, 11 M. & W. 176; Perry v. Fitzhowe, 8 Q. B. 776). Formerly, immediate and public nuisances were prevented or redressed by the Court Leet (a sworn Jury or Committee of not less than twelve inhabitants acting for the district), or Sheriff's Tourn (for the hundred), to whom presentments might be made in reference to public nuisances or encroachments on the highway, want of drainage and overcrowding in houses, unwholesome food, or any matter "touching common nuisances or offences against the general easements of the people, or against the health, &c., of the body politic" (4 Inst. 261); and the parties presented were required to abate the nuisance or pay an equivalent penalty. As to the repair of highways, however, such presentments were abolished by 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, s. 99, and altogether the practice of holding Courts Leet, &c.-the power to hold which might be forfeited by either misuser or nonuser (4 Mod. 56)—has passed into desuetude; their business having chiefly devolved on the Quarter Sessions. It is not necessary

that a public nuisance should be injurious to health, nor will the presence of one nuisance justify another; if there be smells offensive to the senses that is enough, as the neighbourhood has a right to fresh and pure air, so also have persons passing along the highway. (R. v. Neil, 2 C. & P. 85.) To prevent mischief, a Court of Equity will grant an injunction (Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co., 7 H. L. Cases, 612; Potts v. Levy, 2 Dr. 272; Earl of Ripon v. Robart, 3 My. & K. 169.) If, however, the application be delayed without a sufficient cause, it will be refused. Thus the owner of a house near a railway station allowed a siding to be used for unloading manure for three years without complaint, and after complaint of the nuisance suffered a fourth year to elapse before filing his bill for an injunction-no action at law having been brought. Held that on the grounds of delay and acquiescence he was not entitled to the relief sought. Wood, V. C., observed, "the plaintiff having delayed to take any steps for four years, having brought no action to establish his legal right, having stood by and seen money laid out on the siding, and

given by any person aggrieved, or by the sanitary inspector, or two householders, the relieving officer, any constable, or lodginghouse inspector, to the Local Authority [see "Constitution of Local Authorities"] (s. 10), who shall demand that the premises may be inspected between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., and on refusal may apply to a Justice, after notice, who may authorise entry thereon, until such nuisance be abated, or any necessary works completed, or to remove the nuisance in case of noncompliance (s. 11). The Local Authority, in case of any nuisance existing, or likely to recur, shall summon the owner or occupier before two Justices, who may make an order thereon (a) (18 & 19,Vict. c. 121, s, 12), requiring any such nuisance to be abated, or any necessary works to be executed, and may prohibit the use of the premises for human habitation until made habitable (s. 13). Any inhabitant may lay like complaint, and Justices may authorise any constable to act therein (23 & 24 Vict. c. 77, s. 13). Penalty for noncompliance not exceeding 108. a day, and for acting contrary to any order of prohibition 20s. a day; and the Local Authority may enter and execute such order at the expense of the offender (b) (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 14). Un

the traffic increase, without making any objection, could not now be permitted to ask the Court to do what, in effect, would be to stop the traffic of the Company." (Swaine v. Great Northern Railway, 3 New Reports, 109.) On appeal this decision was affirmed by the Lords Justices. (3 New Reports, 399.)

(a) The owner of a market deriving profit from the placing of sheep which created a nuisance therein was held liable to an order to remove the nuisance existing by his "permission or sufferance." (Draper v. Sperring, 10 C. B. N. S. 113; 30 L. J. M. C. 225.) Both the cause and effect of the nuisance must exist within the limits of the district of the local authority; the Justices having no jurisdiction on complaint of such authority in respect of a nuisance existing or originating beyond such limits. (R. v. Cotton, 28 L. J. M. C. 22; 5 Jur. N. S. 311.) The order of the Justices for the abatement of a nuisance and to "do such works and acts as are necessary," is not an order involving permanent structural works, and consequently there is no appeal. (Er parte the Mayor of Liverpool, 8 E. & B. 537 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 89; 22 Jur. 333.

(b) The local authority will not be compelled to enforce an order of Justices for abatement of a nuisance under ss. 10, 12 and 14, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121; it is in their discretion. Thus a mandamus to the local authority for such

less objected to, no Justice shall be incompetent to act, in cases other than appeals, by reason of his being a member of such Local Authority (23 & 24 Vict. c. 77, s. 16). Justices may direct structural works to be executed, if necessary, under the direction of any public body having jurisdiction. Pending any appeal, no proceedings to be taken (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 16). Where owner cannot be found, such order may be executed by the Local Authority out of the rates (s. 17), who may agree with, the Local Board of Health of any adjoining District for the execution by them of any works on payment by such Local Authority (21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 28). Any matter removed by the Local Authority may be sold after notice, unless delay be prejudicial, when the Justices may order the immediate destruction or sale; any surplus after deducting expenses to be paid to the owner thereof (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 18). Costs of proceedings or the execution of works to be paid by the person causing the nuisance in manner prescribed (s. 19). Costs of proceedings and penalties incurred before Justices may be recovered by distress (a), &c. (s. 20).

abatement was refused. (In re Ham L. B. ; 7 E. & B. 280; 26 L. J. M. C. 64; 21 Jur. 136.) To enforce penalties under s. 14 it is necessary to proceed by summons under s. 20 (R. v. Jenkins, 1 New Reports, 21). An agent who receives his authority subsequently to an order for the abatement of a nuisance on the premises of which he afterwards receives the rents, cannot be made liable in default for the expense of executing the necessary works by the local authority (Warton v. Blything Guardians, 1 New Reports, 272.)

(a) With regard to the recovery of penalties, as the Act does not provide the means, the proceedings will be regulated by the provisions of the Administration of Justice (No. 2) Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43), which consolidates the practice with respect to summary convictions before Justices. According to this statute, in all cases where information laid, a summons may be issued, and no objection shall be taken for want of form (s. 1). If disobeyed, warrant may issue (s. 2). Aiders or abetters liable to same penalties (s. 5). Attendance of witnesses may be compelled, who, on refusal to be examined, may be imprisoned not exceeding seven days (s. 7). Costs may be awarded to either complainant or defendant, recoverable by distress, and in default, imprisonment may follow, not exceeding one month, with or without hard labour (s. 18). On conviction, penalties may be levied by distress (s. 19), and, in default of sufficient distress, defendant may be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months (s. 22). Information may be laid before one Justice,

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS.

In the Metropolis, the Vestries or District Boards shall cause all pools, ditches, drains, &c., containing matter injurious to health, to be covered or filled up at the expense of the person causing such nuisance, or at their own expense, if reasonable; compensation to be made to any mill-owner for loss of water (a), &c. (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 86). In case any person neglect to execute any such works upon the order of the Board, he shall, at the option of the Board, forfeit not exceeding 57., and 40s. a day during continuance of default (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 64). The Board may appoint scavengers for the cleansing of streets and removal of dust, &c. (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 125). Penalty for refusing to allow such removal, not exceeding 51.

who may thereupon summon the offender to appear before two Justicescompel attendance of witnesses, and do all other necessary acts preliminary to the hearing, before two Justices present and acting together; and after the hearing, one Justice may issue all warrants of distress or commitment thereon, though he be not one of the Justices who determined the case (s. 29). Sums recovered to be paid to the Treasurer of the County, &c., for which Justices shall have acted (s. 31). Metropolitan Police Magistrate or Alderman of London may act alone (ss. 33, 34).

(a) An action was brought against a District Board, acting under s. 86 of the Metropolis Management Act in the execution of sewerage works, for the fouling of a stream passing through their district and thereby polluting the water beyond their district: held, that the remedy is by compensation under s. 51, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. Per Curiam: Q. B. Cockburn, C. J., Wightman and Crompton, JJ. "The words of the 86th sect. are sufficiently large to embrace the injury done by the pollution of a stream, whether within the local limits of the district or without; and to hold that the present case does not fall within that provision would be virtually to establish that no Board of Health or Vestry could ever avail themselves, for the purpose of drainage, of a stream flowing beyond the local limits, if any damage should occur to proprietors or occupiers further down the stream. For if the work causing such injury beyond the boundary ceases, because of such injury, to be within the powers of the local authority, and therefore is actionable, the injury being a continuing one, fresh actions might from time to time be brought, and the work causing the damage would have to be undone. We cannot think that the legislature intended to place this restraint on the powers conferred by the Act; and we think, therefore, that it will be safer and better so to construe the Act as to make the powers of the local authority and the provision for compensation embrace such a case as the present" (Cator v. Lewisham Board, 3 New Reports, 638). On appeal to the Ex. Ch., however, this decision was