A.D. 1875. Local authority P.H. 1874, s. 21. continues to make default, and the local authority may, if they think fit, execute such works, and may recover in a summary manner from the owner the expenses incurred by them in so doing, or may by order declare the same to be private improvement expenses. Power to determine nature and extent of works. It is to be observed that the power to determine the nature and extent of the works required, is vested in the Local Board; and when proceedings are taken before justices to recover penalties for non-compliance with the notices of the Local Board under that provision, the justices have no power to review the determination of the Local Board. Hargreaves v. Taylor, 32 L. J. M. C. 111; 8 L. T. (N. S.) 149; 9 Jur. (N. s.) 1053; 3 B. & S. 613. Liability of owner and occupier.-The occupier, and not the owner, is prima facie liable for the repair of the drains and sewers of the premises in his occupation; and a declaration against an owner for not cleansing the drains or sewers, not alleging that he was the occupier, or showing a reason for the alleged liability, was held to be bad. Russell v. Shenton, 11 L. J. Q. B. 289. The owner in some cases may, however, be liable, as in the case of Rex v. Pedley, 1. A. & E. 822; 3 L. J. M. C. 119, in which it was held that if the owner of land erect a building which is a nuisance, or of which the occupation is likely to produce a nuisance, and let the land. he is liable to an indictment for the nuisance being continued or created during the term, owing to his not having taken effectual means to prevent it. So also if he let a building which requires particular care to prevent the occupation from being a nuisance, and the nuisance occur from want of that care on the part of the tenant. It would seem from Austin v. Lambeth, 22 Jur. 274, that the Local Authority have the exclusive power to determine whether their directions have been carried out with regard to the materials to be used in the construction of the covered drain. SCAVENGING AND CLEANSING. Regulations as to Streets and Houses. 42. Every local authority may, and when required by order of the Local Government Board shall, themselves undertake or contract for The removal of house refuse from premises; The cleansing of earthclosets privies ashpits and cesspools; either for the whole or any part of their district: MoreSan. 1868, s. 5. over every urban authority and any rural authority invested by the Local Government Board with the requisite powers may, and when required by order of the said Board shall, themselves undertake or contract for the proper cleansing of streets, and may also themselves undertake or contract for the proper watering of streets for the whole or any part of their district. All matters collected by the local authority or contractor in pursuance of this section may be sold or otherwise disposed of, and any profits thus made by an urban authority shall be carried to the account of the fund or rate applicable by them for the general purposes of this Act; and any profits thus made by a rural authority in respect of any contributory place shall be carried to the account of the fund or rate out of which expenses incurred under this section by that authority in such contributory place are defrayed. If any person removes or obstructs the local authority or contractor in removing any matters by this section. authorised to be removed by the local authority, he shall for each offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds: Provided that the occupier of a house within the district shall not be liable to such penalty in respect of any such matters which are produced on his own premises and are intended to be removed for sale or for his own use, and are in the meantime kept so as not to be a nuisance. 21. A.D. 1875. 43. If a local authority who have themselves under- Penalty on taken or contracted for the removal of house refuse from neglect of local authority to premises, or the cleansing of earthclosets privies ashpits remove refuse, and cesspools fail, without reasonable excuse, after notice &c. in writing from the occupier of any house within their P.H. 1874, s. district requiring them to remove any house refuse or to cleanse any earthcloset privy ashpit or cesspool belonging to such house or used by the occupiers thereof, to cause the same to be removed or cleansed, as the case may be, within seven days, the local authority shall be liable to pay to the occupier of such house a penalty not exceeding five shillings for every day during which such default continues after the expiration of the said period. 44. Where the local authority do not themselves under- Power of local take or contract for― The cleansing of footways and pavements adjoining any premises, The removal of house refuse from any premises, authority to The cleansing of earthclosets, privies, ashpits, and San. 1868, s. 5 cesspools belonging to any premises, they may make byelaws imposing the duty of such cleansing or removal, at such intervals as they think tit, on the occupier of any such premises. An urban authority may also make byelaws for the L.G., s. 32. prevention of nuisances arising from snow filth dust ashes (4). and rubbish, and for the prevention of the keeping of animals on any premises so as to be injurious to health. What is not refuse.-The following cases illustrate what substances may not be considered refuse within the meaning of the Act. Where brewers Occupying premises in a parish within the district of the Metropolitan Paving Act, 57 Geo. III. c. 29, burnt coals there in the process of brewing. A.D. 1875. Power to provide receptacles for deposit of rubbish. P.H., s. 56. Houses to be purified on certificate of officer of health, or of two medical practitioners. P.H., s. 60. and when they were partially consumed by having passed once through the fires, removed them intermixed with the dust and ashes arising from the same fires to other premises occupied by them in another parish, where they used them for heating water to cleanse their casks, it was held that the scavenger of the parish first referred to was not entitled, under sects. 59 and 60 of the Paving Act, to claim any of the articles so removed. Filby v. Combe, 2 Mee. & W. 677; 1 Jur. 721. So also where a brassfounder, having extracted a quantity of metal from ashes which fell into the ashpit during the process of casting, was accustomed to give the refuse, in which some metal still remained, as a perquisite to his apprentices, by whom it was sold to brass refiners, who extracted from the ashes a further quantity of metal, it was held that the ashes, being available for a commercial purpose, were not "dust, cinders, or ashes," within the meaning of the same Act. Law v. Dodd, 1 Exch. 845; 17 L. J. M. C. 65. On the other hand, it has been held that the Commissioners under a Local Improvement Act were not compellable to remove from a manufactory, dust, ashes, and rubbish arising from the combustion of coal, and otherwise in the course of the manufacture of edge tools within the limits of the district of the Commissioners, as the intention of the Act was that only the rubbish arising from the domestic use of houses should be removed. Lyndon v. Standbridge, 2 H. & N. 45; 26 L. J. Exch. 386. 45. Any urban authority may, if they see fit, provide in proper and convenient situations receptacles for the temporary deposit and collection of dust ashes and rubbish; they may also provide fit buildings and places for the deposit of any matters collected by them in pursuance of this part of this Act. Bona fide exercise of powers.-With respect to the power conferred upon Local Boards to provide in proper and convenient situations boxes or other conveniences for the temporary deposit and collection of dust, &c., it is to be observed that public bodies, although acting under the general powers given them by statute, have not therefore a license to do whatever they think right, and if the Court is called upon to interfere, it is its duty first to consider whether the proposed exercise of the power is or is not bona fide. Therefore the Lords Justices, on appeal, being satisfied that a public urinal intended to be erected would not of necessity be a public nuisance, and further, that it was neither certain nor probable that the public body were exceeding or would exceed their powers, and that they were not influenced by any improper motive, dissolved an interlocutory injunction which Stuart, V.C., 8 L. T. (N. s.) 44, had issued to restrain the construction of the work. Biddulph v. St. George, Hanover Square, 33 L. J. Ch. 411; 8 L. T. (N. 8.) 558; 9 Jur. (N. s.) 953. 46. Where, on the certificate of the medical officer of health or of any two medical practitioners, it appears to any local authority that any house or part thereof is in such a filthy or unwholesome condition that the health of any person is affected or endangered thereby, or that the whitewashing cleansing or purifying of any house or part thereof would tend to prevent or check infectious disease, the local authority shall give notice in writing to the owner or occupier of such house or part thereof to whitewash cleanse or purify the same, as the case may require. If the person to whom notice is so given fails to comply therewith within the time therein specified, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten shillings for every day during which he continues to make default; and the local authority may, if they think fit, cause such house or part thereof to be whitewashed cleansed or purified, and may recover in a summary manner the expenses incurred by them in so doing from the person in default. See the Introduction, ante, p. lxxiv. Premises unfit for human habitation. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 130, s. 5.—In a Local Board district containing 10,000 or more persons, if the officer of health find that any premises therein are in a condition or state dangerous to health so as to be unfit for human habitation, he shall report thereon to the Local Authority of the district. He is also to do so on receiving a representation from one or more householders living in or near the street where the premises are. The Local Authority are then to take action thereon in the manner provided for by the Act, "to provide better dwellings for artizans and labourers." See that Act, post. Now also in urban districts containing 20,000 or more persons, the medical officer of health may make an official representation to the local authority to the effect that an area is unhealthy, with a view to an improvement scheme being made for the re-arrangement and re-construction of the streets and houses in such area. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 36, post. 47. Any person who in any urban district (1.) Keeps any swine or pigstye in any dwelling-house, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not Keeping pigs.-A bye-law made by a town council under the 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 76, s. 90, imposing a fine upon every person "who shall keep, or suffer to be kept, any swine within the said borough, from the 1st day of May to the 31st day of October, inclusive, of any year," is bad, for it is directed generally against the keeping of swine, and not merely against the keeping of them so as to be a nuisance. Everett v. Grapes, 3 L. T. (N. 8.) 669. A bye-law forbidding the keeping of pigs within one hundred feet of a dwelling-house, and another ordering certain drainage to be provided wherever pigs were kept were held not to be unreasonable byelaws, and in order to a conviction it was not necessary to prove that the infraction of either bye-law caused a nuisance. Wanstead v. Wooster, L. T., 31 May, 1873, p. 81; 37 J. P. 403. A.D. 1875. Penalty in respect of cer tain nuisances on premises. P.H., s. 59. A D. 1875. Provision for offensive near to or forming the The provision in the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 59, as to the keeping of swine, applied not merely to the place of keeping but to the manner of keeping the animals, and therefore, an information and conviction for keeping swine upon premises, and also pigsties thereon, so as to be a nuisance to the inhabitants of the dwelling-houses and premises near and adjoining thereto, were held to be good. Digby v. West Ham, 22 J. P. 304. Accumulation of dung.-Where a stableman kept dung accumulating so that the neighbouring inhabitants had to shut their windows, he was held liable to be convicted under a local Act which imposed a penalty on offensive matter being kept so as to be a nuisance. Per Cockburn, C.J., "a dunghill may or may not be a nuisance, according to the way in which it is kept. If the dung is kept accumulating so long that a stench arises, and annoyance to the neighbouring inhabitants, then I think the case comes within the enactment, and the party may be convicted." Smith v. Waghorn, 27 J. P. 744. Offensive Ditches and Collections of Matter. 48. Where any watercourse or open ditch lying near obtaining order to or forming the boundary between the district of any for cleansing local authority and any adjoining district is foul and ditches lying offensive, so as injuriously to affect the district of such local authority, any justice having jurisdiction in such adjoining district may, on the application of such local authority, summon the local authority of such adjoining district to appear before a court of summary jurisdiction to show cause why an order should not be made by such court for cleansing such watercourse or open ditch, and for executing such permanent or other structural works as may appear to such court to be necessary; and such court, after hearing the parties, or ex parte in case of the default of any of them to appear, may make such order with reference to the execution of the works, and the persons by whom the same shall be executed, and by whom and in what proportions the costs of such works shall be paid, and also as to the amount thereof, and the time and mode of payment, as to such court may seem reasonable. It will be observed that this section extends to Rural authorities. Where boundary between two districts is a highway, the sea, or a river.— With regard to the boundary of a district, it has been held that where the boundary between two conterminous parishes is a highway, the presumption is that the half highway on either side of the medium filum belongs to the parish on that side. Reg. v. Board of Works for the Strand District, 33 L. J. M. C. 33. And, again, where a parish extends up a tidal river, but there is nothing to show whether it does or does not extend beyond the line of ordinary or medium high-water mark, land between such highwater mark and low-water mark cannot be assumed to be within the parish, as there is no distinction in this respect between land on the sea shore and land on the shore of a tidal river. Bridgewater Trustees, Apps., Bootle-cum-Linacre, Resp., L. R. 2 Q. B. 4; 15 L. T. (N. s.) 351. See also Foreman v. Whitstable, 34 J. P. 147, aud the note on pp. 3, 4, ante. Now, by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 122, s. 27, every accretion from the sea, whether natural or artificial, and the part of the sea-shore to the low-water mark, and the bank of every river to the middle of the stream, which on the 25th of December, 1868, shall not be included within the boundaries of |