C. CAS. R.] REG. v. JAMES BRAMLEY. [C. CAS. R. that there were more than twenty partners or share-owners of property in the case of partners and other holders in the bank; and that it was, as he understood, joint owners, be it enacted, that in any indictment or a joint-stock banking company. I was thereupon requested to amend the indictment. I did so by striking out the words John Cleveland Green, and stating the property to be the property of Philip Williams and others. The prisoner was convicted and sentenced, and is now undergoing his sentence. On the same day on which he was tried, and shortly before the verdict was recorded, my attention was called by the prisoner's counsel to the statutes and cases collected in Archbold's Criminal Law, 14th edit., pp. 36 and 37. I then reserved for the opinion of this Court the question whether, upon the evidence set out, the ownership of the property was sufficiently described in the indictment as amended; and if not, whether the description in the indictment before the amendment was made was sufficient, if that question could after the amendment be properly reserved. The question submitted is, whether the indictment as amended, or as it stood before amendment (supposing it can in its original form be referred to), sufficiently described the ownership of the property according to the evidence to sustain the conviction. W. F. CHANNELL. information for any felony or misdemeanor, wherein POLLOCK, C. B.-We are all of opinion that the question submitted to us, whether the indictment as amended sufficiently described the ownership of the property, must be answered by saying that it did. The 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 14, expressly applies to the case of partnership and joint owners, and to all jointstock companies and trustees, and provides that it shall be sufficient to name one of such persons, and to state such property to belong to the person so named and another or others, as the case may be. It cannot be supposed that, although their banking business may not have been carried on according to law, they are not possessed of the property. They were the possessors of it, and the possession of it was properly laid to be in the one named and others, within the meaning of the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 14. The conviction, therefore, will stand. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 14, makes it plain that they do not, McIntyre, for the prisoner.-It is submitted that, after the amendment had once been made, and the verdict recorded, the judge had no power to amend further, and that the property was wrongly laid to be in Williams and others. It ought to have been laid to be in the public officer of the banking company. The 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 28, s. 15, provides that no other bank than the Bank of England shall be established or allowed by Parliament, and that it shall not be lawful for any number of persons exreeding six to issue notes payable on demand at any less time than six months, during the continuance of WILLIAMS, J.-I am of the same opinion. Chapthe privileges granted by that Act to the Bank of Eng-man v. Milvain would bind us to the extent that in land. Then, taking this to be a joint-stock company, a civil action the words " shall and may," in 7 Geo. 4, and to consist of more than six partners, it must have c. 46, s. 9, are imperative, and that an action cannot a public officer according to the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, s. 4. be maintained in such a case in the name of any other And then sect. 9 enacts, "That all indictments, infor- person than the public officer. But the question is, mations and prosecutions by or on behalf of such co-whether that decision applies to an indictment. The partnership for any stealing or embezzlement of any money, goods, effects, &c., or other property of or belonging to such copartnership, or for any fraud, forgery, or crime or offence, committed against or with intent to injure or defraud such copartnership, shall and lawfully may be had, preferred and carried on in the name of any one of the public officers nominated as aforesaid for the time being of such copartnership. [WILLES, J.-Under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 113, the property may be laid to be in the body corporate.] But there is no evidence that this company was incorporated under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 113. [POLLOCK, C. B.-May any one go and steal their property if they have not appointed a public officer? WILDE, J.-That is, if they have not complied with the statute.] It is to be assumed that the company has acted legally and appointed a public officer. The words "shall and may in the 9th section are obligatory; and in Chapman v. Milvain, 5 Ex. 61, it was held that a joint-stock banking company under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, were bound to sue in the name of their public officer In Reg. v. Beard, 8 C. & P. 143, which was referred to in the judgment in Chapman v. Milvain, Coleridge, J. intimated an opinion that a registered joint-stock banking company was not bound to prosecute in the name of their public officer, but the point was not argued. [BLACKBURN, J.-How do you reconcile your construction of the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, s. 9, with sect. 14 of the subsequent Act, 7 Geo. 4, c. 64?" And in order to remove the difficulty of stating the names of all the Conviction affirmed. REG. v. JAMES BRAMLEY. Prisoner went to a colliery professedly to buy a load of Case reserved for the opinion of this court. C. CAS. R.] REG. v. JAMES BRAMLEY. [C. CAS. R. At the last Nottinghamshire quarter sessions held | anything of the kind before, and I'll never try it anyat Nottingham, James Bramley was indicted for felo- more." The clerk told the prisoner the difference in niously stealing, on the 19th day of Nov. last, at Bas- the price between slack and the best soft coal, and the ford, 15 cwt. of coal, of the value of 8s. 6d., the prisoner paid the clerk. The prisoner said, "You property of Thomas North.. have not said anything about it, have you?" The clerk said, "I have, and shall say more." The prisoner then went away, and the clerk gave information of the facts to his employer. The prosecutor was the owner of a colliery. The prisoner was a higgler, and in the habit of coming to the colliery to purchase coal. Both coal and small coal or slack were sold by retail at the colliery to higglers and others, but it was proved that none (except to certain private customers of Mr. North, with whom an account was kept) was allowed to be taken away until it had been paid for, and that when the carts were loaded they were taken to the prosecutor's weighing machine in the colliery yard, where the weight and price of the coals having been ascertained, the coals were paid for to the prosecutor's clerk in charge of the weighing machine. The weighing machine is at the entrance of the prosecutor's yard, and so placed that carts entering and passing out of the yard have to pass the machine, and within view of the clerk in charge of it, and as the carts go into the yard empty they are weighed. On returning loaded they are again weighed, and from the gross weight so ascertained the weight of the empty cart is deducted, and the residue is taken to be the net weight of the coals in the cart. The prisoner, having frequently before the day in question fetched coals from the prosecutor's yard, was acquainted with the above regulations, and knew that he would not be permitted to take coals out of the yard until they had been weighed and paid for as above mentioned. The price of soft coal was about double that of slack. On the day named in the indictment the prisoner brought his cart to the colliery, and said, "I want a load of the best soft coal." The cart was loaded with the best soft coal by a servant of the prosecutor, whose business it is to load the carts of the customers, assisted by the prisoner himself. Having finished loading the coals, the prosecutor's servant went away to his work in another part of the yard, leaving the prisoner to take his cart to the weighing machine to be weighed, which ought at once to have been done. Near the place where the coals were so loaded was a heap of slack, and after the prosecutor's servant had left the prisoner as before mentioned, the prisoner (as appeared by a statement subsequently made by him) placed a quantity of this slack on the top of the load of soft coal, thereby covering over the coal, and making the cart appear to be loaded with slack only. The prisoners's counsel submitted that there was no case to go to the jury to charge the prisoner with stealing the coal, and that if there was any offence committed, it would be obtaining the coal under false pretences. The Court overruled this objection, and told the jury that if they were of opinion that the prisoner at the time when he went to the colliery for the coal intended fraudulently to take the same away and appropriate it to his own use on paying for the soft coal the price of slack only, and that he actually carried out his intention by fraudulently placing slack over the soft coal, and making the false representation above mentioned to the weighing clerk, they might convict the prisoner of larceny of the coal. The jury found the prisoner guilty of larceny, but the court of quarter sessions respited judgment until the next quarter sessions, and discharged the prisoner upon his own recognisance, with two sureties, to appear at the next sessions to receive judgment, should the Court for Crown Cases Reserved be of opinion that he was properly convicted. The opinion of the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved is requested whether the prisoner was rightly convicted of larceny ? Cave for the prisoner. It is admitted that the conviction of the prisoner for larceny was wrong. Although the evidence might be sufficient to support an indictment for obtaining the coal by false pretences, the authorities show that it is not sufficient to support larceny. The distinction between false pretences and larceny is laid down in 2 East, P. C. 688, and a number of cases cited, which show that where the intention of the prosecutor is to part with the property in the thing obtained by the prisoner, it is a case of false pretences; and where the intention is to part with possession only of the property, it is a case of larceny. In R. v. Parkes, 2 East P. C. 67, the deft. bought goods and desired them to be sent to him with a bill and receipt, and the shopman who took them left them upon being paid for them by two bills, which turned out to be mere fabrications. The judges held that this was not larceny, because the prosecutor had parted with the property as well as the possession. So in R. v. Jackson, Russ. & Moo. 119, The prisoner then took the cart to the weighing-where the prisoner was indicted for stealing a diamond machine, and the clerk in charge of the machine said to brooch and other articles, and it appeared that they the prisoner. "What have you got?" He said, had been pledged, and that the prisoner obtained them "Slack." The clerk, seeing only slack in the cart, there- and some money from a pawnbroker's servant, by preupon weighed the cart and charged the prisoner for the tending to deposit another pledge of greater value in load as slack, and the prisoner paid such charge and lieu of them, it was held that it was not larceny, went away with his cart. Had the cart contained because the servant, who had a general authority from slack only, the amount paid by the prisoner was all the master, parted with the property and ownership, that would have been due from him; but, as the fact and not merely with the possession. [WILLIAMS, J. was, the sum paid by the prisoner was considerably-The difference between that case and the present is less than the real price of the load. this: the pawnbroker's servant, having a general Shortly after the prisoner had gone away the authority, was induced to part with the property in the weighing clerk having communicated with the prose-old pawn; but in the present case the cart was not to cutor's servant, who had loaded the prisoner's cart be allowed to go out of the prosecutor's yard without with the coal, as before mentioned, sent after the pri- payment of the price of the coal.] This is the converse soner, who was overtaken with the cart on the highway, of the ordinary case of obtaining money by false preproceeding towards Nottingham. The prisoner re- tences. The court must be satisfied that the prisoner turned with the messenger to the prosecutor's yard, could not have been convicted of obtaining the deft.'s coal and was charged by the clerk with obtaining soft coal by false pretences. If the soft coal had been of nearly as slack. The prisoner said to the clerk, "What's the same value as the slack, would it have amounted the difference and I will pay you, and we will have no to larceny? Here there is strong reason for saying more bother about it." The clerk said, "Oh, shan't that the property in the soft coal had been parted with. we ?" Prisoner said, "It's the first time I have done [WILDE, B.-Suppose the case of a shop, in one part [MAG. CAS.] 3 A C. CAS. R.] REG. v. URIAH WEEKS. of which the customer selects the goods, and then has to take them to another for the purpose of having the bill made out and paying for them, but that instead of taking the goods to that part to have the bill made out and paying for them, the man slips away with the goods without paying for them.] In such a case there would be no consent at all to the man's taking away the goods. [WILDE, B.-Here the weighing clerk consented only to the carrying away slack, not the soft coal which was invisible.] Here it is contended, the clerk intended to part with the cart load of coal which was standing before him. Boden, for the prosecution, was not called upon to argue. [C. CAS. R. taken in a house occupied by the prisoner. At the time of the capture, the police were attacked, and attempts made to destroy the coining materials, and the prisoner then came to the house, and entered the house, notwithstanding some of the others called out to him "that the police were there." He was then captured. It was also proved that the prisoner, about thirteen days before, had passed a bad halfcrown, but it did not appear that that half-crown was made in the mould found in the house : Held, that there was sufficient evidence to be left to the jury on the charge of felony, and that the evidence of the passing of the bad half-crown was admissible to prove guilty knowledge. Case reserved by Blackburn, J. for the opinion of this Court. which was impressed the figure and apparent resemblance of the obverse side of a half-crown. POLLOCK, C. B.-We are all of opinion that the conviction was right. This case does not at all differ from that which was suggested by my brother Wilde- Uriah Weeks was indicted before me at the last viz. where a man receives goods in one part of an esta- Monmouth assizes, along with John Loveridge, Elizablishment, and has to take and pay for them in another beth Loveridge, Mary Weeks, and Valentine Trew, for part, but he slips away without paying for them. In knowingly and without lawful excuse, feloniously such a case it cannot be said that the goods are abso-having in their custody and possession a mould on lutely delivered to him, and therefore the man acquires no property in them. In this case the soft coal was delivered to the prisoner by the prosecutor's servant for the purpose of being taken to the weighing-machine to be weighed and there paid for. The prisoner, when the servant was away, covered the soft coal with slack, and took it to the weighing-machine, and caused it to be weighed and paid for as slack. It cannot be said that there was any permission to take away the soft coal, or that it was paid for or delivered. Suppose the case of a mine consisting partly of silver and partly of lead, if a man professing to take away a certain quantity of silver, were to cover it over with lead and then smuggle it out and pay for it as lead only, that would be merely a mode of concealing and stealing the silver. It WILLIAMS, J.-I am of the same opinion. was contended that this is a case of false pretences, and not a case of larceny; but the distinction has been settled to be that where the owner, of property, by means of a trick or subterfuge, is induced to part with the possession, it amounts to larceny; but where he intends to part with the property, it is a case of false pretences. In the present case the jury have found that the prisoner went to the colliery with a preconceived and dishonest intention of obtaining possession of the soft coal; and having so obtained it, instead of taking it to the weighing-machine to be weighed, and paying for it as soft coal, he used the artifice of covering it over with slack, and by that trick altogether prevented the weighing clerk from seeing the soft coal was beneath the slack. The prisoner had no permission to take away the soft coal without paying for it; and indeed the weighing clerk was altogether ignorant of the fact that any soft coal was beneath the slack. Instead of obtaining any property in the soft coal, the prisoner obtained the possession of it merely. The case was, therefore, one of larceny. The rest of the Court concurring, Conviction affirmed. Saturday, April 27. (Before POLLOCK, C.B., WILLIAMS, WILLES and BLACKBURN, JJ., and WILDE, B.) REG. . URIAH WEEKS. Coining-Having possession of a mould-2 Will. 4, c. 24, s. 21-Guilty knowledge-Previous offence. The prisoner, jointly with several others, was indicted for a felony, viz., for knowingly and feloniously having in their custody and possession a mould (for coining) of the obverse side of a half-crown. The mould and other coining materials, and also all the persons charged, with the exception of the prisoner, were found and On the trial it was proved that the prisoner Uriah Weeks had for about a month occupied a house in Pontypool. On the night of the 15th March the police went to that house, and on entering found the prisoners John Loveridge, Elizabeth Loveridge, Mary Weeks, who was the wife of the prisoner Uriah Weeks, and Valentine Trew. The two men attacked the police and attempted to keep them at bay, whilst the two women snatched up something from the table which they threw into the fire. The police overpowered the men in sufficient time to preserve part of what the women were endeavouring to destroy, which proved to be fragments of a plaster of paris mould of a half-crown, parts of which were still wet. The men Loveridge and Trew were taken into custody to the police station by some of the police whilst the others remained to take charge of the women and search the house. Uriah Weeks shortly afterwards came to the house. The women called out to him that the police were there. He nevertheless came in and was taken into custody. On searching the house, which was a house with two rooms on each floor, a quantity of plaster of paris was found in a cupboard up stairs, along with several bottles containing liquids, and some bags with different powders in them; but no evidence was given of what their contents were. There was also found in a cupboard in a room down stairs an iron ladle such as might have been used for melting metal, and on the hearth in one of the rooms upstairs was found a small portion of white metal, and amongst the cinders someplaster of paris moulds. It was proved that Uriah Weeks had on the 2nd March, thirteen days before the night in question, passed a bad half-crown, but there was no evidence to show that the bad half-crown which he passed had been made in the mould found in his house on the 15th of March. An objection was taken on behalf of Uriah Weeks, that there was no sufficient evidence to show that hehad the possession of the moulds. By 2 Will. 4, c. 24, s. 21, it is enacted that where the having any matter in the custody or possession is in that Act expressed to be an offence, if any person shall have any such matter in his personal custody or possession, or shall knowingly and wilfully have any such matter in any dwelling-house, &c., whether occupied by himself or not, every such person shall bedeemed to have such matter in his custody and possession within the meaning of this Act. I left the case to the jury, who found the prisoner Uriah Weeks guilty, and in answer to a question from. ROLLS.] HUGHES V. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. [ROLLS. me said that they were satisfied that he knew the mould | spect to ground-rent, for which he accordingly claimed was in his house. He was afterwards tried and convicted of uttering the base half-crown. Sentence was passed upon him of twelve months' imprisonment for that offence, and concurrently with that imprisonment penal servitude for three years for the felony; but, as I had some doubts whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction on the felony, I respited the sentence of penal servitude till the opinion of this Court could be obtained upon the point. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether there was sufficient evidence to be left to the jury on the charge of felony. No counsel appeared for the prisoner. G. R. N. Somerset, for the Crown, was stopped. POLLOCK, C. B.-We are all of opinion that there was enough evidence to be left to the jury to enable them to say whether the mould was knowingly and feloniously, and without lawful excuse, in the custody, and possession of the prisoner, and that the conviction for the felony must be affirmed. It was found in a house of which he was the master, and it was there apparently for a felonious purpose. In order to prove the scienter evidence of other substantive offences of any sort having a tendency to prove guilty knowledge may be given. If a man is charged with the commission of one felony, and his commission of another felony has a tendency to prove guilty knowledge on his part, no doubt you may give evidence of that fact collaterally. This conviction, therefore, must be affirmed. Conviction affirmed. ROLLS COURT. Reported by H. R. YOUNG, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Thursday, March 21. HUGHES V. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. The 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120 (An Act for the better Local Management of the Metropolis) sects. 135-144, and sects. 150-153-Land or easement, purchase of. The Metropolitan Board of Works have, under the above-stated sections of their Act, an optional right of purchasing for the purposes of that Act, either land or easements in land, upon payment of compensation for damages (if any) done in the formation of their works. The North London Railway Company v. The Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 John. 405, fol lowed. The plt. in this case had obtained an injunction to restrain the defts. the Metropolitan Board of Works from making a sewer through his land without his consent, or until proper compensation had been made to him. It appeared that he was entitled to a piece of land at East Dulwich; and that the defts., in pursuance of the powers contained in the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, had some time since commenced the construction of the southern high level sewer. That sewer, as planned, was carried under the plt.'s land. The defts., however, had not given him any notice of their desire to purchase or take on lease the land, or any right or easement over it; but the plt. ascertained that some part of his land, or a right or easement therein, would be required by the defts. for the purposes of their Act. He accordingly instructed his solicitor to write in Dec. 1860 to the defts., stating that he had originally bought the land for the sole purpose of building, and had laid out the ground accordingly; in consequence of which he would sustain permanent damage by the contemplated sewerage works. He estimated the extent of that damage at the amount of 97. 12s. per annum, with re the sum of 2407, being twenty-five years' purchase on the rent-but he stated that he was willing to treat with the defts. forthwith, and in case of difference he was desirous of having the compensation settled by arbitration, and he required the defts. not to proceed with the works till his claim was settled. In reply to that letter the defts. wrote to say that the Board of Works sanctioned the erection by the plt. of buildings over the line of sewer passing through his land; and that they would construct such works around it, for the foundation of the houses and the protection of the sewer, as might be deemed necessary. Under those circumstances, the defts. presumed that the plt. would not make any claim for compensation on that head. The plt. replied that he objected to the prosecution of the intended works on his land before his original claim had been disposed of. The defts., however, on the 16th March, entered upon the land and began their works; whereupon the bill in this suit was filed, and the plt. obtained an ex parte injunction to restrain the defts. from making or continuing to make the sewer without his consent, or until a proper compensation should have been paid to him in respect of the land, right, or easement required by the defts. for the construction of the sewer. The general scope of the sections of the defts.' Act, the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120, on which the decision of the case mainly rested, may be shortly stated as follows:: The 135th and next sections of the Act regulate the duties of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and by the 135th section the main sewers are vested in the board, with full powers to make and maintain other sewers in connection therewith. By the 136th section plans of those sewers are to be submitted to the commissioners of her Majesty's works. By the 137th and subsequent sections down to the 144th, the Metropolitan Board of Works are empowered to make and do various things and matters with reference to those works, and jurisdiction; and by the 144th section they are enabled to take by agreement or gift any land, rights in land or property, for their special purposes. By the 150th section the Metropolitan Board of Works and district boards and vestries are authorised to make any works, and buy or take on lease any land, or any right or easement in or over land, and to effect other things for the purposes of their Act; but they are prohibited from carrying water by supply pipes into any house or factory for domestic, manufacturing, or commercial purposes. By the 151st section certain provisions of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, are incorporated with the Metropolis Local Management Act: by the 152nd section the powers conferred by the Lands Clauses Act, "of purchasing and taking lands otherwise than by agreement," are incorporated, but in a qualified manner only, with the powers of that Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120); and no land, or right or easement in or over land, for the purposes of that last-mentioned Act, is to be compulsorily taken by the board without the sanction of a principal Secretary of State. And by the 153rd section previous notice of the intention of the board to take such land, right or easement, with plans of the proposed works, are to be given to or furnished for the information of the owners, lessees, or occupiers of such property, together with the terms on which any compensation for damage is to be assessed. The case now came on upon a motion by the defts. to dissolve the injunction. R. Palmer, Q.C. and Charles Hall, in support of the motion, contended that by the 135th section of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, the defts. had full power to execute any works within the terms of the section (making compensation for the damage occasioned thereby), without first purchasing or obtaining the land or easement therein, under the sects. 150-153; although such works might involve the taking of such land or easement. The latter clauses were only enabling clauses, giving the Board of Works the right of taking the land itself, where they preferred that course to proceeding under the 135th section. They relied upon the case of The North London Railway Company v. The Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 John. 405, as precisely in point, and in their favour. The defts. were willing to pay whatever compensation might be awarded to the plt. in respect of the damage occasioned to his property by their works. Cole, Q.C. and F. S. Drake appeared for the plt. and opposed the motion. The construction put upon the statute by the other side would virtually enable the defts. to confiscate any property they might require for the purposes of their Act, which could not have been the intention of the Legislature. If the defts. required a legal easement in land they must pay the owner for it. The MASTER of the ROLLS.-I have no doubt that this case is governed by the decision of Wood, V.C., which was referred to in the argument. If it had not been for that decision, I should have thought it right to give further consideration to this matter. It appears to me, however, obvious that the 135th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act gives powers to the defts. distinct from those contained in the 150th and two following sections. The 135th section, by itself, gives powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works to make sewers as they may think fit. If that section is controlled by any subsequent one, it must be so by clear and distinct words. But the only controlling word which I can see in the subsequent sections, is the word "easement." Now I very much doubt whether, when that word easement was mentioned in the Act, it was intended to refer to the kind of easement stated in this bill. I must own the inclination of my opinion is that it was not so intended, and so also Wood, V.C. seems to have thought, after hearing a most elaborate argument. The exercise of the optional right given to the defts. by the statute, of proceeding under the 135th or other sections, does not involve any question of honesty or dishonesty on their part, but depends upon this consideration whether, when contemplating the making of the sewer, they can make it without affecting the surface, or may find it more convenient to drive it nearer to that, in which case it may be necessary for the board to take the land and buy the easement. If that latter course should ultimately be the one which the board must pursue, they would have to proceed under the 150th and 153rd sections: if the former, under the 135th section, and the only question then would be one of damages. Those, however, are to be settled according to their amount by the justices of the peace, or by arbitration, under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. That being so, the defts. appear to me to have acted within the powers given to them by their Act, and as they are quite willing to pay such compensation for the damages sustained by the plt. as may be settled; and as their plan does not involve the taking of the land or the easement under the 150th and 153rd sections, there is no necessity for them to proceed by public advertisement. The defts. have only done what they are justified in doing, and the injunction must be dissolved with costs. [C. B. COURT OF COMMON BENCH. Reported by DANIEL THOMAS EVANS and W. MAYD, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Monday, April 22. DRAPER (app.) SPERRING (resp.) Nuisance-Sheep droppings in market-Liability of owner of tolls to remove-18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, ss. and 12-"Recurring nuisance.” The app. claiming to be the owner of markets and fairs held in the town of Crewkerne, erected a sheep-pen in front of a house in the said town and took toll for sheep exposed for sale therein. After the removal of the sheep their droppings and urine remained, and a complaint was lodged against app. by the resp. (who was inspector of nuisances) in respect thereof. For fifty-five years and upwards the inhabitants of the houses before which the sheep were penned had been in the habit of clearing away the droppings, and app.'s servants never cleared them away, except in cases where houses before which the pens were placed were unoccupied. The justices being of opinion that app. was a person by whose "permission or sufferance" the nuisance was created, and that the ground inclosed by app. with hurdles for the aforesaid purpose was "land or tenement" within the meaning of sect. 12 of the Nuisances Removal Act, and that the nuisance was a recurring nuisance within the said Act, issued their prohibition to the app. Held, on appeal, that the justices were right. This was a case by way of appeal from the decision of justices, stated for the opinion of this court under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, s. 2. CASE. At a petty sessions holden at Crewkerne, in and for the division of Crewkerne, in the county of Somerset, on the 16th day of June 1860, before us the undersigned two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county, the following complaint was heard and determined by us the abovenamed parties being present. The complaint was preferred by John Sperring, the inspector of nuisances, appointed by the nuisances removal committee for the tything of Crewkerne (hereinafter called the resp.), against Martha Draper (hereinafter called the app.), under sect. 12 of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, being the Nuisances Removal Act for England 1855, and charged that on the 3rd day of April 1860 there was on a certain pavement or causeway situate in Sheep-marketstreet, in Crewkerne aforesaid, in front of a messuage or dwelling-house in the possession of Sidney Morris Cornelius, an accumulation or deposit of dung or filth caused by the penning and standing of sheep on the said pavements on Saturday the 31st day of March previously, being a market-day at Crewkerne aforesaid, and that the same not being washed or cleared away after the removal of the said sheep, was a nuisance or injurious to health, and that the said nuisance was caused by the act or default of the app., by reason that the app. used or occupied the said pavement or causeway for letting pens for the standing of sheep thereon, for hire and reward, and had on the said 31st day of March allowed sheep to stand and be penned for a long space of time on the said pavement or causeway, and had received tolls and profits in respect thereof, and that in consequence of such standing or penning, the said dung or filth was deposited and left, and the app. had neglected to cleanse or wash away the same and to remove the said nuisance so thereby created, and that although the said nuisance had since the said 3rd day of April been removed or discontinued there was reasonable ground for believing that the same or the like nuisance was likely to recur on the said premises. And upon such hearing we, the said justices, considering that the cause of nuisance complained of did exist on |