« EelmineJätka »
in this way.
sons who have caused this nuisance may it would lead to the most formidable conbe liable to an action or some other pro- sequences. There is no question which ceeding, they are not liable to be pro- comes before the Courts more difficult to ceeded against under the summary power try than those which arise in cases of given by this act. It seems to me to be manufactories, and consequential nuisances clear on looking at sections 12. and 30. arising from the manner in which the busithat the Justices have not complete juris- ness is carried on. Such questions are diction unless the cause and effect of the most complicated; they require the most nuisance are both within the area of the scientific evidence in their investigation, local authority. Unless that be so, they and are not fit to be tried by the Justices have no power at all. It was never in
The purview of the act tended by the legislature that this sum- shews this. “ Nuisances," mentioned in mary mode of proceeding should be given section 8, are caused by the local habitain such a case, for if it were so it would tation of the origin of the smells, &c.; lead to the most serious consequences. the word “nuisances" is to include, first, The remedy must remain as it was at com- any premises in such a state as to be a mon law so far as this case is concerned. nuisance or injurious to health ; and next, The act causing the nuisance was done by any pool, ditch, gutter, watercourse, privy, Messrs. Ind & Coope in the parish of Rom- urinal, cesspool, drain or ashpit so foul as ford by throwing the refuse of their beer to be a nuisance or injurious to health : barrels into the water of the river, and that seems therefore to point to such nuinothing was done by them in the parish sances as can be seen or smelt; and though of Dagenham. Therefore, the cause did the word "watercourse" is used, it comes in not arise within the area of the jurisdiction the middle of the other kinds pointed out, of the local authority, and the rule must and is followed by “any animal so kept be discharged.
as to be a nuisance or injurious to health." Erle, J.-I am entirely of the same Then the local authority may go and see opinion. The rule must be discharged. whether such nuisances do exist. The This summary jurisdiction is created for mode of proceeding which is given by the the removal of nuisances, and machinery is act is very material. By section 16, where provided for doing so by the establishment it shall appear to the Justices that the of a local board; and the only nuisances execution of structural works is required within the jurisdiction of the Justices are for the abatement of a nuisance, they may those which are within the local area of direct such works to be carried out under the local authority. The remedy so given the direction or with the consent or apby the act is confined to cases where no proval of the board, &c.; but if the progreat doubt as to the existence of the visions of this act of parliament are to nuisance would exist, where it might be apply to the present case, the local board ascertained by the exercise of sight, touch of Dagenham cannot go to Romford to or smell by those persons to whom the inspect the works and houses there. Then jurisdiction is given. Then everything
Then everything section 22. gives power to lay down sewers which is ascertained to exist as a nuisance where ditches, gutters, drains or waterwithin the area of their jurisdiction may be courses are nuisances within the meaning of removed by the local authority. This is the act, but the local authority could not very different from the trying a question be authorized to go and cover up the of a consequential result arising from that ditches or drains in Romford. I am clearly which has been done in a distant place, of opinion with the Lord Chief Justice and has caused a nuisance within the area that it would be most dangerous to sancof the local authority. It is admitted that tion the notion that such a question as the business of these brewers was carried this could be decided at a distance from on at Romford, and that they poured their the place where the act causing the damage refuse into the river Rom at that place, is done, by a proceeding before the Jusand caused damage at Dagenham by reason
Rule discharged. of their having poured in such refuse at Romford. If a power was given to any (2) Wightman, J. and Hill, J. were sitting in two Justices to try such a question as that, the Court of Criminal Appeal.
1858. LABALMONDIERE, appellant, v. tive portions of the structure, and otherNov. 6. ADDISON, respondent. wise to render the same secure, to the
satisfaction of the surveyor appointed by Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122.) ss. 73, 103.-11 & 12 Vict.
the Commissioners in that behalf, within
one month from the date of that order. c. 43. s. 11.-Recovery of Expenses
With this order the respondent did not Limitation of Time for Complaint.
comply; and the dangerous structure not By the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855 having been taken down, or otherwise (18 F 19 Vict. c. 122.), s. 73, all expenses secured, within the time limited by the incurred by the Commissioners in respect of order, the Commissioner, in January 1857, any dangerous structure shall be paid by under the authority of the said act, caused the owner; and by section 103. all expenses, so much of the structure as was in a danto be recovered in a summary manner, may gerous condition to be taken down, repaired, be recovered as directed by the 11 & 12 and otherwise secured in such manner as Vict. c. 43, by section 11. of which complaint was requisite. In so doing expenses were must be laid within six months from the time incurred by him, by virtue of the second when the matter of such complaint arose. part of the Metropolitan Building Act, The owner of a dangerous structure not 1855, relating to dangerous structures, having taken it down, as required pursuant amounting to the sum of 491. 3s. Notice to the former act, the Commissioners took it of these expenses was given to the respondown; and the amount of the expenses in- dent by the Commissioners on the 30th of curred was demanded of the owner and April 1858, and payment of the amount refused. A complaint was laid before a was at the same time demanded. With this Magistrate, for the non-payment of the ex- demand the respondent refused to comply. penses, within six months of the demand and The 73rd section of the Metropolitan refusal, but beyond six months from the com- Building Act, 1855, provides, that all pletion of the works :—Held, that the matter expenses incurred by the Commissioners of complaint was the non-payment of the in respect of any dangerous structure, by expenses, and that the time of limitation ran virtue of the second part of that act, shall from the demand and not from the completion be paid by the owner of such structure ; of the works ; therefore that the complaint and the same act provides, that such exwas in time,
penses may be recovered in a summary
manner; and by the 103rd section of the Case stated on appeal by one of the same act it is enacted, that all expenses Metropolitan Police Magistrates.
by that act directed to be recovered in a In the year 1856 a certain struc- summary manner may be recovered in ture, of which the respondent was the manner directed by the statute 11 & 12 owner, was certified to the appellant, one Vict. c. 43, intituled, 'An act to facilitate of the Assistant Commissioners of Police the performance of the duties of Justices of the Metropolis authorized to act in the of the Peace out of Sessions within Engmatter of the Metropolitan Building Act, land and Wales with respect to summary 1855, to be in a dangerous state, where- convictions and orders.' upon the Commissioners, on the 16th of The repairing and securing the works July 1856, duly gave notice to the respon- executed by the Commissioners dent, requiring him, according to the pro- completed, and the expenses occasioned visions of the said act, to take down and thereby were incurred before the end secure the structure within fourteen days of the month of January 1857; but from the date of such notice. The respon- no complaint was made, and no infordent having failed to comply with this mation was laid against Mr. Addison requisition, the Commissioners made com- by the Commissioner respecting the explaint thereof to the Magistrate ; and, on penses he had incurred as before mentioned the 3rd of September in the same year, until the 11th of May 1858, on which 1856, he made an order, in writing, upon day the Commissioner made a complaint the respondent, requiring him to take before the Magistrate, and a summons was down from the top to the bottom the defec- issued calling upon the respondent to an
NEW SERIES, XXVIII.--MAG. Cas.
swer it. The summons was as follows:- had elapsed from the time when the matter “Whereas complaint has this day been of complaint arose, and the determination made, before &c., by Charles Reeves, for of the application by dismissing the sumthat on the 3rd of September 1856, at &c., mons was correct; but if the terminus was certain work was ordered to be done to be taken from the date of the demand upon the premises, No. 6, Delahay Street, and refusal, the determination was erroneous. Westminster, within the Metropolitan Police District, of which you (the respondent) were
Quain, for the respondent, in support of the owner, pursuant to the 18 & 19 Vict. the decision of the Magistrate.- The Mac. 122, and the sum of 491. 3s. having been gistrate was right; the complaint was too expended in carrying out the said work, late. The 73rd section of the 18 & 19 together with the fees due thereon, and the Vict. c. 122. says simply, “that all exsaid sum of 491. 3s. having been applied penses incurred by the Commissioners in for on the 30th of April last, you have respect of any dangerous structure shall neglected and refused to pay the same, be paid by the owner;" no demand, therecontrary to the statute, &c.
fore, of the money was necessary, and the therefore to command you, &c., dated the money became payable as 11th of May 1852.” (1)
expenses were incurred, that is, as soon as The Magistrate dismissed the summons the works were completed. Section 103. upon the ground that the complaint had incorporates the summary proceedings not been made within six calendar months under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, and, by secfrom the time when the matter of such tion 11. of the latter act, the time limited complaint arose. In the Metropolitan for making the complaint is six months from Building Act, 1855, no time of limitation the time when the matter of the complaint for complaints or information is specified, arose ; in the present case, the matter of the but by section 11. of the 11 & 12 Vict. complaint arose, not on the non-payment on c. 43. it is enacted, “that in all cases demand, but as soon as the money was paywhere no time is already or shall here- able on the completion of the works. In after be especially limited for making a The Kennett and Avon Canal Company v. the complaint or laying an information in the Great Western Railway Company (2), the act or acts of parliament relating to each defendants were empowered by statute to particular case, such complaint shall be divert the plaintiffs' canal, and it was made and such information shall be laid enacted, that if the canal should be ob. within six calendar months from the time structed, the defendants should pay to the when the matter of such complaint or infor- plaintiffs, as ascertained damages, 10l. an mation respectively arose.
The Magis- hour during the continuance of the obtrate determined that the matter of com- struction, and that in default of payment on plaint in this case arose at the time the demand the plaintiffs might recover the sum works were completed and the expenses by an action of debt; and no action was to had been incurred, and that the six calendar be brought for anything done, or omitted months limited by the above statute must to be done, in pursuance of the act, but be considered to run from that time. within six months after the act committed,
The question for the opinion of the Court or in the case of continuing damage within was, whether the matter of complaint in six months after the damage had ceased ; this case was to be considered as arising and it was held, in an action for the liquiat the time the works were completed, and dated damages for obstructing the canal, the expenses incurred by the Commissioner, that the six months ran, but from the last or at the time of the demand made by him obstruction. on the respondent for payment, and the Hawkins, for the appellant. -The limitarefusal to comply with such demand. In tion in the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43. s. 11. does the former case, more than six months not apply; but, assuming that it does, the
complaint was made in due time; the mat(1) The summons was not set out in the case, but was produced to the Court, on the hearing, at (2) 7 Q.B. Rep. 824 ; s.c. 14 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) the Chief Justice's desire.
ter of complaint is not the not doing the Willes, J. stated the following CASE :works ordered, but the non-payment of the William Bennett was convicted before expenses incurred by the Commissioners. me, at the Old Bailey, on the 18th of The respondent was not and could not be in August 1858, of the manslaughter of Sarah default until the money was demanded of Williams. The substantial question is, him, or, at least, until he had notice of the whether a person who makes fireworks, amount of expense incurred, and the only contrary to the 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 7.-s. 1, notice he had was with the demand on the is indictable for manslaughter if death be 30th of April, which was within six months caused by a fire breaking out among comof the complaint.
bustibles in his possession, collected by him
in the course of use for the purpose of his LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-It seems con- business, but not completely made into trary to all reason to say, that there was fireworks at the time. any liability or default in the respondent The prisoner had a house and firebefore application had been made to him, workshop in the Westminster Road, statin g what the amount of expenses where, for some time before the fire were and demanding payment, although a hereinafter mentioned, he openly carried demand is not expressly required by the on the business of selling fireworks; he statute. The six months, therefore, had had also a workshop at a neighbour's, not elapsed when the complaint was laid. named Sunter, and a factory at Peckham.
WIGHTMAN, J.-The default of the re- He had contracted to supply Vauxhall and spondent alleged in the summons is, the Cremorne Gardens with fireworks, which he non-payment of the amount of expenses regularly did in considerable quantities. after having been applied to for them. He made and kept his stock of fireworks Hill, J. concurred (3).
at the factory at Peckham ; from there he Matter remitted to the Magistrate. used to take the supply necessary for the
Gardens daily to the house in the Westminster Road, where they used to be kept
for two or three hours, until they were [CROWN CASE RESERVED.]
taken away for the use of the Gardens. In 1858.
the room at Sunter's the smaller sort of Nov. 13.
rockets were made, excepting heads for Manslaughter Keeping Fireworks
holding stars ; these heads were added at Negligence of Servants—Řemote Cause of the house in the Westminster Road fire
the house in the Westminster Road. At Death.
works were offered for sale. No fireworks The prisoner made fireworks, and kept were made there, except as follows: first, them for sale in a house in the Westminster the finishing the smaller rockets, as already Road. In his absence, by negligence or mentioned, and making stars for them of accident a fire took place among the mate- combustible matter ; secondly, making rials of the fireworks, which set light to a fireworks called "serpents"; thirdly, makrocket and caused it to fly across the street ing cases with combustible matter called and set fire to a house in which a person was “ red, blue, and green fire." It is to who was burnt to death :-Held, that as the this last-mentioned part of the business death was not caused alone by the illegal act that I ought to direct particular attention. of the prisoner in keeping the fireworks, but This fire was employed for filling by the superadded act of some one else in coloured cases used to imitate revolving setting them on fire, the illegal keeping lights in fireworks called " wheels." the fireworks was too remotely the cause of These cases were not used by themthe death to render the prisoner amenable to selves, but in connexion with other a charge of manslaughter.
fireworks, to add to their effect. T'he
contents of the cases of fire made at (3) Erle, J. had left the Court for chambers. the Westminster Road were combustible, Coram Cockburn, C.J., Wightman, J., Wil
and the red fire would explode if liams, J., Willes, J. and Channell, B.
struck hard. Five or six pounds of fire
THE QUEEN V. BENNETT.
were made every day in the Westmin- prisoner. Entertaining doubts upon the ster Road and filled there, in the back above points, I request the opinion of the room, into the cases with a rammer and
Judges. mallet, by persons employed for the pur- Giffard, for the prisoner, was stopped by pose. At the time of the fire there was a the Court. quantity of red and blue fire in the house, Martin, for the Crown.—The prisoner in the room where it was put into the cases, is responsible for the consequences of his in order to be used as already mentioned in unlawful act of keeping the fireworks conthe course of the business, and a quantity of trary to the statute. fireworks for the evening. On Monday, the 12th of July, about six in the evening, COCKBURN, C.J.-The prisoner kept a the prisoner being out of the house, and quantity of fireworks in his house, but that not personally interfering, a fire broke out alone did not cause the fire by which the in the red and blue fire, which communi- death was occasioned.
It was the supercated to the fireworks, causing a rocket to added negligence of some one else that fly across the street and set fire to a house caused it. Had the death proceeded from at the opposite side in which the deceased the natural consequence of this unlawful Sarah Williams was burnt to death. The keeping of the fireworks, as, for instance, fire was accidental, in the sense of not if from the prisoner's negligent keeping of being wilful or designed. It did not hap- them a rocket had gone off in spontaneous pen through any personal interference or combustion, and so caused the death, the negligence of the prisoner, and he is en- conviction might, I think, have been maintitled to the benefit of any distinction be- tained. But here the death was caused by tween its happening through negligence of the act of the defendant plus the act of his servants, and by pure accident without some one else. any such negligence.
WILLES, J.-Having given very full conIt was contended that there was sideration to this case since the trial, I case against the prisoner, insomuch as concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice, the cases of red fire were only parts of that the intervening of the negligent act of fireworks, and not within the statute, the servant makes the death too remotely and that it did not appear that by caused by the illegal act of the prisoner in reason of making fireworks the mischief keeping the fireworks, and so disconnects happened ; and that, at all events, the it from his act, and that the conviction death of the deceased was not the direct cannot be supported. and immediate result of any wrong or The other Judges concurred. omission on the prisoner's part; and there
Conviction quashed. was cited a case from the Sessions Reports at the Old Bailey, in which Alderson, B. is reported to have held, that an indictment for manslaughter was not maintain
[CROWN CASE RESERVED.) able under such circumstances. I, however,
1858. overruled these objections, holding that the
THE QUEEN V. HILTON. *
Nov. 22. prisoner was guilty of a misdemeanour in doing an act with intent to do what was Indictment — Previous Conviction - Arforbidden by the statute; and that as the
rangement-Amendment of Case. fire was occasioned by such misdemeanour, and without it would not have taken place, An indictment charging a felony may or could not have been of such a character as allege a previous conviction against the to cause the death of the deceased, which prisoner, either before or after the substanotherwise would not have taken place, a
tive charge. case was made out. The question of a nuisance, independent of the statute 9 & 10 * Coram Pollock, C.B., Wightman, J., WilWill. 3. c. 7. and the consideration arising
liams, J., Channell, B., Hill, J. The application
for amendment of the case was heard before the upon it, need not be noticed as it has been
same Judges, except that Cockburn, C.J. presided disposed of upon the facts in favour of the instead of Pollock, C.B.