A gas company is bound to keep up such a reasonable inspection of their mains and pipes as may enable them to detect when there is such an escape of gas, by fracture or imperfection of pipes, as may lead to danger of an explosion; and if an explosion take place from a fracture or defect which has existed for several days, during which time it has also been discoverable by reason of the smell of the escaped gas, and would have been discovered by proper inspection, that is evidence of negligence on the part of the company; nor is it enough to relieve them from liability that upon notice of the escape they sent a workman to repair the defect, he arriving too late to do so. Mose v. Hastings and St. Leonards' Gas Co., 4 F. & F. 324. The defendants, a gas company, having contracted to supply the plaintiff with a service-pipe from their main to the meter on his premises, laid down a defective pipe from which the gas escaped. A workman in the employ of a gas-fitter, employed by the plaintiff to lay down the pipes leading from the meter to different parts of the premises, negligently took a lighted candle for the purpose of finding out whence the escape proceeded. An explosion then took place, whereby damage was occasioned to the plaintiff's premises, to recover compensation for which the plaintiff brought his action against the defendants. Held, that the damage was not too remote, and that the plaintiff, not being the master of the workman, could not be considered as contributing to the damage by reason of his act, and was, therefore, entitled to recover. Burrows v. March Gas and Coke Co., 39 L. J., Ex. 33. water con XXV. Whenever any water within the limits of the special Penalty if act shall be fouled by the gas of the undertakers, they shall taminated by forfeit to the person whose water shall be so fouled for every gas. such offence a sum not exceeding twenty pounds, and a further sum not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which the offence shall continue after the expiration of twenty-four hours from the service of notice of such offence. The former penalty of 2007. was for a wilful act; this provides for any negligence or carelessness on the part of the gas company. The following provisions are found in the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 101: Sect. 27. Any person engaged in the manufacture of gas, naphtha, vitriol, paraffine or dye stuffs, or any other deleterious substance, or in any trade in which the refuse produced in any such manufacture is used, who shall at any time cause or suffer to be brought or to flow into any stream, reservoir, aqueduct, well or pond, or place for water constructed or used for the supply of water for domestic purposes, or into any pipe or drain communicating therewith, any product, washing or other substance produced in any such manufacture, or shall wilfully do any act connected with any such manufacture, whereby the water in any such stream, reservoir, aqueduct, well, pond or place for water shall be fouled, and any person who shall wilfully do or permit to be done any act whereby the water in any stream, reservoir, aqueduct, well, pond or place constructed for the supply of water for domestic purposes shall be fouled, shall forfeit for every such offence a sum not exceeding 507. Sect. 28. Such penalty may be recovered, with expenses, by the person into whose water such product, washing or other substance shall be conveyed or shall flow, or whose water shall be fouled by any such act as aforesaid, or in default of proceedings by such person, after notice to him from the local authority of their intention to proceed for such penalty, or if there be no such person, by the local authority; but such penalty shall not be recoverable unless it be sued for during the continuance of the offence or within six months after it shall have ceased. Power to ex to ascertain Sect. 29. In addition to the said penalty (and whether such penalty shall have been recovered or not), the person so offending shall forfeit a sum not exceeding 57. (to be recovered in a like manner) for each day during which such product, washing or other substance shall be brought or shall flow as aforesaid, or during which the act by which such water shall be fouled shall continue after the expiration of twenty-four hours from the time when notice of the offence shall have been served on such person by the local authority or by the person in whose water such product, washing or other substance shall be brought or flow, or whose water shall be fouled thereby, and such penalty shall be paid to the local authority or person from whom such notice shall proceed; and all moneys recovered by the local authority under this or the preceding section shall, after payment of any damage caused by the act for which the penalty is imposed, be applied towards defraying the expenses of executing this act. XXVI. For the purpose of ascertaining whether such water amine gas pipes be fouled by the gas of the undertakers the person to whom the water supposed to be fouled shall belong may dig up the ground and examine the pipes, conduits, and works of the undertakers; provided that such person, before proceeding so to dig and examine, shall give twenty-four hours' notice in writing to the undertakers of the time at which such digging and examination is intended to take place, and shall give the like notice to the persons having the control or management of the road, pavement, or place where such digging is to take place; and they shall be subject to the like obligation of reinstating the said road and pavement, and the same penalties for delay or any nonfeasance or misfeasance therein, as are herein before provided with respect to roads and pavements broken up by the undertakers for the purpose of laying their pipes. cause of contamination, if notice be given of the same. examination. Expenses to XXVII. If, upon any such examination, it appear that abide result of such water has been fouled by any gas belonging to the undertakers, the expenses of the digging, examination, and repair of the street or place disturbed in any such examination shall be paid by the undertakers; but if upon such examination it appear that the water has not been fouled by the gas of the undertakers, the person causing such examination to be made shall pay all such expenses, and shall also make good to the undertakers any injury which may be occasioned to their works by such examination. How expenses to be ascertained. XXVIII. The amount of the expenses of every such examination and repair, and of any injury done to the undertakers, shall, in case of any dispute about the same, together with the costs of ascertaining and recovering the same, be ascertained and recovered in the same manner as damages for the ascertaining and recovery whereof no special provision is made are to be ascertained and recovered. Clauses for protection of water companies in the metropolis will be found in "The Metropolis Gas Act, 1860," post. XXIX. Nothing in this or the special act contained shall Nothing to exempt underprevent the undertakers from being liable to an indictment takers from for nuisance, or to any other legal proceeding to which they being indicted may be liable, in consequence of making or supplying gas. Nuisance is anything which renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. Per Lord Mansfield, R. v. White, 1 Burr. 337. The word "nuisance," under the Public Health Act, 1875, sect. 91, so far as applicable to the purposes of this work, means- 1. Any premises in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health. 3. Any animal so kept as to be a nuisance or injurious to health. 6. Any factory, workshop, or workplace (not already under the operation 7. Any fireplace or furnace which does not, as far as practicable, consume the smoke arising from the combustible used therein, and which is used for working engines by steam, or in any mill, factory, dyehouse, brewery, bakehouse, or gaswork, or in any manufactory, or trade process whatsoever; and any chimney (not being the chimney of a private dwelling-house) sending forth black smoke in such quantity as to be a nuisance. These may be dealt with summarily in manner provided by the act. Provided first-That a penalty shall not be imposed on any person in respect of any accumulation or deposit necessary for the effectual carrying on any business or manufactory, if it be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the accumulation or deposit has not been kept longer than is necessary for the purposes of the business or manufacture, and that the best available means have been taken for preventing injury thereby to the public health. Secondly-That where a person is summoned before any court in respect of a nuisance arising from a fireplace or furnace, which does not consume the smoke arising from the combustible used in such fireplace or furnace, the court shall hold that no nuisance is created within the meaning of the act, and dismiss the complaint, if it is satisfied that such fireplace or furnace is constructed in such manner as to consume as far as practicable, having regard to the nature of the manufacture or trade, all smoke arising therefrom, and that such fireplace or furnace has been carefully attended to by the person having the charge thereof. In the case of Bishop v. Great Western Railway Co., L. R., 7 Q. B. 550, it was held that the words in the Nuisances Removal Act, "any premises in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health," did not include a case where a railway bridge over a street was in such a condition that water dripped through or between the planks on persons in W. D for a nuisance. the street beneath, as it was not shown that the act complained of was injurious to health. But in Gaskell v. Bailey, 38 J. P. 293, it was held that it was unnecessary to show that smoke was injurious to health. See also Reg. v. Waterhouse, 41 L. J., M. C. 154; L. R., 7 Q. B. 545. As to liability for acts of workmen, see Barnes v. Ackroyd, L. R., 7 Q. B. 474. The scheme of the enactments consolidated under this heading (Nuisances) is to make, so to speak, a catalogue of certain mischiefs which would popularly be called nuisances, and to provide, in addition to any other remedy (see sect. 111), a particular mode of procedure for getting rid of them. It is made the duty of every local authority in the first place, to ascertain from time to time by their officers what nuisances exist within their district; on being satisfied of the existence of any nuisance, to serve a notice on the offender requiring its abatement; if the notice is disregarded, then to summon the offender before a court of summary jurisdiction. If the case is proved before the court, an order is made directing the abatement of the nuisance, or prohibiting its recurrence, or as the case may require (sect. 96). The order, if disobeyed, may be enforced by a continuing penalty. Moreover, the local authority may enter the premises to which the order relates and do the necessary work, and recover the expenses from the person on whom the order is made (sections 98-104). It must be added that an individual can, if he chooses, set the law in motion by complaining direct to a justice, without the intervention of the local authority; and that where the local authority think that summary proceedings under the act would be inadequate, they may cause proceedings to be taken in any superior court; sections 105, 107, (see G. A. R. Fitzgerald's "Public Health Act, 1875," p. 85). The local authority may also proceed against any person for a nuisance occurring in their district caused by an act or default without their district, and this extends to the metropolis. See sect. 108. There is no such serious or permanent injury caused by a gas company, without parliamentary sanction, taking up the streets as would justify the interference of a court of equity by way of injunction for a nuisance. The Att.-Gen. v. The Cambridge Consumers Gas Co., 38 L. J., Ch. 94, 111. Upon the trial of an indictment against a company for a nuisance in conveying the refuse of gas into a great public river, whereby the fish were destroyed and the water rendered unfit for drinking, the question for the jury is, do the acts complained of and done by the company amount to a nuisance? Rex v. Medley, 6 C. & P. 292. A sanitary authority may proceed against a gas company and recover penalties for nuisance under the 114th section of the Public Health Act, 1875: Where any candle house, melting house, melting place, or soap house, or any slaughter house, or any building or place for boiling offal or blood, or for boiling, burning, or crushing bones, or any manufactory, building or place used for any trade, business, process or manufacture causing effluvia, is certified to any urban authority by their medical officer, or by any two legally qualified medical practitioners, or by any ten inhabitants of the district of such urban authority to be a nuisance or injurious to the health of any of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, such urban authority shall direct complaint to be made before a justice, who may summon the person by or on whose behalf the trade so complained of is carried on to appear before a court of summary jurisdiction. The court shall inquire into the complaint, and if it appears to the court that the business carried on by the person complained of is a nuisance, or causes any effluvia which is a nuisance or injurious to the health of any of the inhabitants of the district, and unless it be shown that such person has used the best practicable means far abating such nuisance or preventing or counteracting such effluvia, the person so offending (being the owner or occupier of the premises, or being a foreman or other person employed by such owner or occupier) shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds nor less than forty shillings, and on a second and any subsequent conviction to a penalty double the amount of the penalty imposed for the last preceding conviction, but the highest amount of such penalty shall not in any case exceed the sum of two hundred pounds. Provided that the court may suspend its final determination, on condition that the person complained of undertakes to adopt, within a reasonable time, such means as the court may deem to be practicable and order to be carried into effect for abating such nuisance, or mitigating or preventing the injurious effects of such effluvia, or if such person gives notice of appeal to the court of quarter sessions in manner provided by the act. Any urban authority may, if they think fit, on such certificate as is in this section mentioned, cause to be taken any proceedings in any superior court of law or equity against any person in respect of the matters alleged in such certificate. Sect. 115. Where any house, building, manufactory or place which is certified in pursuance of the last preceding section to be a nuisance or injurious to the health of any of the inhabitants of the district of an urban authority, is situate without such district, such urban authority may take or cause to be taken any proceedings by that section authorized in respect of the matters alleged in the certificate, with the same incidents and consequences as if the house, building, manufactory or place were situated within such district; so, however, that summary proceedings shall not in any case be had otherwise than before a court having jurisdiction in the district where the house, building, manufactory or place is situated. This section shall extend to the metropolis so far as to authorize proceedings to be taken under it by any nuisance authority in the metropolis, in respect of any house, building, manufactory or place which is certified as aforesaid to be a nuisance or injurious to the health of any of the inhabitants within the area of their jurisdiction, and is situated within the district of a local authority under this act, or by any urban authority in respect of any house, building, manufactory or place which is certified as aforesaid to be a nuisance or injurious to the health of any of the inhabitants of their district, and is situate within the jurisdiction of any such nuisance authority. In this section "nuisance authority" means the local authority in the metropolis for the execution of the Nuisances Removal Act for England, 1855, and the acts amending the same: see sects. 27 and 28 of the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121), which, however, differ very little from the sections here quoted of the Public Health Act, 1875. But it was held not to be a sufficient answer to a complaint that the gaswork had been carried on in the usual manner-it must be in a reasonable and proper manner-but no plan of any nuisance authority is necessarily to be adopted. See Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, 31 L. J., Exch. 9, and Tinkler v. The Board of Works for the Wandsworth District, per Turner, L. J., 27 L. J., Ch. 342-349. But where in a local act the words were that the furnace was to be so constructed as to "consume as far as possible all the smoke," it was held by the Court of Exchequer that the words, "as far as possible," in the local act meant as far as possible consistently with the carrying on of the manufacture in question; and that where the manufacturer, in using a furnace constructed to consume its own smoke, has been guilty of no negligence, but has consumed the smoke as far as he could consistently with carrying on his manufacture, he ought not to be convicted in the penalty. Cooper v. Woolley, 36 L. J., M. Č. 27. It is enacted by the 112th section of the Public Health Act, 1875: "Any person who, after the passing of this act, establishes within the district of an urban authority, without their consent in writing, any offensive trade; that is to say, the trade of blood boiler, or bone boiler, |