that he should have on the premises eight | b. Works constructed under Statutory Powers, 208. 2. Materials Dangerous to Life and Property, 210. 3. Spring Guns and other Engines, 213. 4. On Highways, 214. of sale described the lands as a valuable feesimple property, and one of the conditions of sale alluded to the letters patent. It appeared from a statute (10 Car. 1, sess. 3, c. 3) and certain public documents therein referred to, that the covenants were those inserted in patents B. PRESCRIPTION AND ACQUIESCENCE, 221. at the plantation of Ulster; where the lands 5. In Harbours or Navigable Rivers, 219. were situate :-Held, that the purchaser, having C. PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF. express notice of the letters patent, was bound Beav. 495. Of Restrictive Covenants.]-See VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 8. BY WANT OF DEEDS. 1. Removal and Abatement, 225. 2. Before Justices. a. Jurisdiction, 226, 3. Indictment, 234. a. When it Lies, 239. c. Parties, 240. A. WHAT AMOUNTS TO. 1. NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE TRADES, WORKS, OR THINGS. a. Generally. Injurious to Health ]-To support an indictment for a nuisance, it is not necessary that the smells produced by it should be injurious to the health, it is sufficient if they are offensive to the senses. Ch. Rex v. Neil, 2 Car. & P. 485; 31 R. R. 685. A purchaser taking a conveyance from a vendor, who has not possession of the title-deeds, will take it with notice of any claim which the party in possession of the title-deeds may have. Dryden v. Frost, 3 Myl. & C. 670; 8 L. J., 235; 2 Jur. 1030. Duty to Inquire.]-The possession of a client's deeds by his solicitor is so usual, and so much in the ordinary course of transactions, that where a purchaser purchases an estate, and is informed that the deeds are in the hands of the solicitor of the owner of the estate, there is nothing in that circumstance which renders it necessary for him to inquire under what circumstances But the merely carrying on of an offensive the solicitor holds the deeds. And, therefore, trade is not an indictable offence, unless it is where a solicitor acquires, by contract, a dif-destructive to the health of the neighbourhood, ferent interest beyond what his character of or renders the houses uncomfortable or untenantsolicitor confers (such as an equitable mort- able. Rex v. Davey, 5 Esp. 217. gage), it is incumbent on him immediately to give clear and distinct notice of such interest to all persons in the visible ownership of the estate and such a case is not within the principle of the cases in which a purchaser of land has been held bound to inquire of the tenant in possession the nature of his interest. Bozon v. Williams, 3 Y. & J. 150. See also MORTGAGE. Effect on Neighbourhood.]-An indictment lies for a nuisance in erecting buildings near the highway and dwelling-houses, and there making acid spirit of sulphur, whereby the air is impreg nated with noisome and offensive stinks, to the common nuisance of all inhabiting and passing. Rex v. White, 1 Burr. 333. NOVA SCOTIA. See COLONY. J. M. And if it only affects the inhabitants of three houses, it is not sufficient. Rex v. Lloyd, 4 Esp. 200. If the occupier of a house turns it to purposes which are unusual, having regard to the purposes for which it and the adjoining houses were originally constructed, and thus causes a substantial injury to his neighbour, that is not a reasonable use of his property, and the neighbour who is injured is entitled to the protection of the court. Ball v. Ray, L. R. 8 Ch. 467; 28 L. T. 346; 21 W. R. 282. A., being the owner of two adjoining houses, demises one to B., and afterwards demises the other to C. Neither A. nor C. can make such alterations on the premises demised to the latter as will prevent the comfortable enjoyment of the house demised to B. If C. threatens and begins to make alterations which the court is satisfied will prevent the comfortable enjoyment of B.'s house, an injunction will be granted. Palmer v. Paul, 2 L. J. (0.s.) Ch. 154. Defendant had a soap and black-ash manufactory at Battersea, and an information was filed, in the name of the attorney-general, by the neighbours. Motion, to suspend this alleged nuisance until a trial at law, refused; Lord Eldon observing, that the question was, what amounts to a nuisance. Some manufactories have been held no nuisance, though they may destroy the whole comfort of life, as a sugarhouse, or a brew-house, or making bricks, which are so in common parlance only. The court is very cautious in granting injunctions in such cases ex parte; but the court will abate a nuisance on the public highway, or in a harbour. Att.-Gen. v. Cleaver, 18 Ves. 211. There is a distinction between an action for a nuisance in respect of an act producing a material injury to property and one brought in respect of an act producing personal discomfort. As to the latter, a person must, in the interest of the public generally, submit to the discomfort of the circumstances of the place, and the trades carried on around. As to the former, the same rule would not apply. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, 11 H. L. Cas. 642; 35 L. J., Q. B. 66; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 785; 12 L. T. 776; 13 W. R. 1083. A. bought an estate in a neighbourhood where many manufacturing works were carried on. Among others, there were the works of a copper smelting company. It was not proved whether these works were in active operation when the estate was bought. The vapours from these works when they were in operation were proved to be injurious to the trees on the estate. At the trial the judge told the jury that (unless by a prescriptive right) every man must so use his own property as not to injure that of his neighbour, but that the law did not regard trifling inconveniences; everything must be looked at from a reasonable point of view, and therefore, in the case of an alleged injury to property, as from noxious vapours from a manufactory, the injury, to be actionable, must be such as visibly to diminish the value of the property; that locality and all other circumstances must be taken into consideration; and that in counties where great works have been, and were carried on, parties must not stand on extreme rights:Held, that the direction was right. Ib. When no right by prescription exists to carry on a particular trade, the fact that the locality where it is carried on is a locality generally employed for the purpose of that and similar trades, will not exempt the person carrying it on from liability to an action for damages in respect of injury created by it to property in the neighbourhood. Ib. ence of other nuisances of a similar character, if it can be shown that the inconvenience is increased by the nuisance complained of. Crossley v. Lightowler, 36 L. J., Ch. 584; L. R. 2 Ch. 478; 16 L. T. 438; 15 W. R. 801. In order to constitute a nuisance, there must be, not merely a nominal, but such a sensible and real damage as a sensible person, if subjected to it, would find injurious, regard being had to the situation and mode of occupation of the property injured. Scott v. Firth, 4 F. & F. 349; 10 L. T. 240. The fitness of the locality does not prevent the carrying on of an offensive, though lawful trade, from being an actionable nuisance; but whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff's enjoyment before the acts complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great to amount to a nuisance, an action will lie whatever the locality may be. Bamford v. Turnley, 3 B. & S. 62; 31 L. J., Q. B. 286; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 377; 10 W. R. 803-Ex. Ch. Mode of Carrying on Trade.]—A party having discharged arsenic and other injurious matter from his works into a stream, which he might have avoided doing by certain expedients:Held, that he could not defend himself, in an action arising therefrom, by showing that his trade was a lawful trade, carried on in a proper manner. Baxendale v. M Murray, L. R. 2 Ch. 790; 16 W. R. 32. When this defence is attempted it lies on the defendant to show that the trade is a lawful trade, and not on the plaintiff to show that it is not. Ib. Carrying on a lawful trade in the ordinary and obvious manner is not necessarily carrying it on in a reasonable and proper manner. Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, 7 H. & N. 160; 31 L. J., Ex. 9; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 880. The defendants had since July, 1894, carried on the business of newspaper forwarding agents at premises in the City of London. The plaintiffs were respectively the leaseholders and part occupiers of certain residential premises erected in 1886, and which were opposite to the defendants' premises. The occupying plaintiffs and others of the tenants of the plaintiffs' premises had been so disturbed by the noise of the defendants' carts and the shouts of their drivers and others of the defendants' employées between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. that they were in many cases unable to sleep; and some of the plaintiffs tenants had in consequence left, and others had threatened to leave :-Held, that the defendants' business had caused a nuisance by noise so continuous and of such a character as to entitle the plaintiffs to an injunction. Bartlett v. Marshall, 44 W. R. 251; 60 J. P. 104. The defendant, an hotel proprietor, placed in his kitchen and used in his business a large cooking range, with a shaft for hot air, which interfered with the comfort of the plaintiff's house, by overheating his wine cellar :-Held, that although the use by the defendant of the range and shaft was perfectly reasonable, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to restrain the nuisance thereby caused to him. Broder v. Saillard, (45 L. J., Ch. 414; 2 Ch. D. 692), followed. Reinhardt v. Mentasti, 58 L. J., Ch. 787; 42 Ch. A place where the works of one person are carried on which occasion an actionable injury to the property of another is not within the meaning of the law a "convenient" place. Ib. If a party sets up a noxious trade remote from habitations and public roads, and after that new houses are built, and new roads constructed near it, the party may continue his trade although it is a nuisance to persons inhabiting such houses or passing along such roads. Rex v. Cross, 2 Car. | D. 685; 61 L. T. 328; 38 W. R. 10. & P. 483; 31 R. R. 684. If a person carries on upon his property some A nuisance cannot be justified by the exist-process which is in itself noxious, a neighbour may be entitled to restrain him from carrying it obtained a lease of land, containing brick clay, on so as to cause damage to him; but if the pro- upon which he erected brick kilns within 340 cess is not in itself noxious, it cannot be com- yards of a mansion, and close to the boundary of plained of as a nuisance unless it interferes with the property of the owner, and he proceeded the ordinary enjoyment of life or the ordinary with the burning of bricks, which was an annoyuse of property. Robinson v. Kilvert, 58 L. J.,ance to her, and it destroyed her property. The Ch. 392; 41 Ch. D. 88; 61 L. T. 60; 37 W. R. 545-C. A. It is no answer to a complaint by a manufacturer of a nuisance to his trade, to say that, the injury is felt only by reason of the delicate nature of the manufacture. Cooke v. Forbes, 37 L. J., Ch. 178; L. R. 5 Eq. 166; 17 L. T. 371. "Accumulation or Deposit"-Manure-Railway--In section 107, sub-s. 4 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, corresponding to s. 91, sub-s. 4 of the Public Health Act, 1875. which provides that "any accumulation or deposit which is a nuisance or injurious to health" shall be deemed to be a nuisance within the Act, the word “accumulation” implies some gradual accretion, a heaping up of matter from day to day; and "deposit means something put down in some place and left there. Both words involve the idea of a certain degree of permanency, and do not extend to the case of loading and unloading manure in the ordinary Course from a railway company's waggons for the purpose of delivery to customers. G. N. Ry. v. Lurgan Commissioners, [1897] 2 Ir. R. 310. Brewhouse.]-A brewhouse is not necessarily a nuisance. Gorton or Gordon v. Smart, 1 Sim. & S. 66; 1 L. J. (0.s.) Ch. 36. Brickmaking.] Brickmaking is not necessarily such a noxious or an offensive business, trade, or manufacture as is contemplated by the Public Health Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 64). Wanstead Local Board v. Hill, 13 C. B. (N.S.) 479; 32 L. J., M. C. 135; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 972; 7 L. T. 744; 11 W. R. 368. But burning bricks on a man's own ground, so as to be offensive to a neighbour, is a nuisance, and will be restrained by injunction by a court of equity. Walter v. Selfe, 4 De G. & S. 315; 20 L. J., Ch. 433; 15 Jur. 416. But see Hole v. Barlow, 4 C. B. (N.S.) 334; 27 L. J., C. P. 207; 4 Jur. (N.s.) 1019; 6 W. R. 619. court granted an injunction to restrain the nuisance, and directed that he should not burn any bricks within a distance of 653 yards from the house. Beardmore v. Tredwell, 3 Giff. 683 ; 31 L. J., Ch. 892; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 272; 7 L. T. 207. Where a man by an act on his own land, such as burning bricks, causes so much annoyance to another in the enjoyment of a neighbouring tenement, as to amount primâ facie to a cause of action, it is no answer that the act was done temporarily only in a proper and convenient spot, and was a reasonable use of the land. Bamford v. Turnley, 3 B. & S. 62; 31 L. J., Q. B. 286; 9 Jur. (N.s.) 377; 10 W. R. 803—Ex. Ch. S. C. at nisi prius, 2 F. & F. 231. S. P., Carey v. Lidbetter, 13 C. B. (N.S.) 470; 32 L. J., C. P. 104; 6 L. T. 721; 10 W. R. 803. Fish-frying Business.]-A fish-frying business is not a noxious or offensive business within s. 112 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which only applies where a business is necessarily noxious or offensive. Braintree Local Board v. Boyton, 52 L. T. 99; 48 J. P. 582. Bone-boiling.]-Where persons carried on a business of steaming bones in metal cylinders, hermetically sealed, and introducing dry steam which stripped the bones and caused no offensive smell, no water being used in the process :--Held, that they could not be convicted under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 112, for establishing the offensive trade of bone-boiling. Cardiff Manure Co. v. Cardiff Union, 54 J. P. 661. Keeping Swine.]-It is an offence under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 47, to keep swine so as to be a "nuisance" in the common law meaning of the term. It is not necessary to such offence that there should be any injury to health. Banbury Urban Sanitary Authority v. Page, 51 L. J., M. C. 21; 8 Q. B. D. 97; 45 L. T. 759; 30 W. R. 415; 46 J. P. 184. To constitute an infringement of a by-law made by an urban authority imposing a penalty Brick-burning is a nuisance to persons living for keeping swine within 50 yards of a dwellingwithin the limit affected by it, and 240 yards is house, it is not necessary that swine should be not an extreme limit, and, therefore, an injunc-kept overnight within those limits. Steers v. tion to abate such a nuisance will be ordered. Manton, 57 J. P. 584. Roberts v. Clarke, 18 L. T. 49. Where a covenant not to create a nuisance applies to allottees inter se, a nuisance on adjoining land not part of the allotments, is not a fraud on the covenant. The question whether brickburning is a nuisance in the sense of being an annoyance must depend on the circumstances, and no distance can be fixed. Cleeve v. Mahany, 9 W. R. 882. Injunction granted to restrain the burning of bricks, not then already burning, in clamps on ground within sixty yards of the plaintiffs' houses, and from continuing, after a certain day, were then burning, upon evidence of ill consequences suffered by some of the plaintiffs and their families, from the noxious effects of the operation. Pollock v. Lester, 11 Hare, 266. to burn such as A. contracted to supply bricks for the erection of the fortifications at Portsdown Hill, and he A rural sanitary authority purporting to act under ss. 44 and 276 of the Public Health Act, 1875, made a by-law prohibiting the keeping of swine within fifty feet from any dwelling-house within their district :-Held, that the by-law was unreasonable, and therefore bad. Heap v. Burnley Union, 53 L. J., M. C. 76; 12 Q. B. D. 617; 32 W. R. 660; 48 J. P. 359. An urban sanitary authority under the powers conferred by the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, made a by-law prohibiting the keeping of swine in any yard within 21 feet from a dwelling-house or public building in which any person might be or might be intended to be employed in any manufacture, trade or business, except with the special permission of the sanitary authority:-Held, that this by-law was valid. Lutton v. Doherty, 16 L. R., Ir. 493. Gipsy Encampment.]-Injunction granted re straining the owner of a piece of land allowing same to be occupied by gipsies and others in such numbers and in such a manner as to cause a nuisance. Att.-Gen. v. Stone, 60 J. P. 168. Gasworks. In 1832 a market gardener became the occupier of land and premises adjoining the works of a gas company. In 1836 he took a lease, which would have expired in 1853, but in 1850 he obtained a renewal of this lease until 1874. At the time of the last renewal the company was enlarging their works, and building a new retort-house, much larger, and nearer the market gardener's premises. He brought an action, in 1854, against the company for damages for the nuisance which the works occasioned to him as a market gardener. On the case coming on for trial, a reference was agreed upon, and the arbitrator, by his award, found that damage had accrued to a considerable extent. Notwithstanding the award, the company added to their works, and built a third retort-house. On a bill filed for a perpetual injunction:-Held, that the award of the arbitrator sufficiently established the right of the market gardener to such injunction, without the verdict of a jury. Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Broadbent, 7 H. L. Cas. 600; 29 L. J., Ch. 377; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 1319. - Dangerous Building.] - Injunction granted against converting old houses in London to a purpose that made them dangerous to the public. London (Corporation) v. Bolt, 5 Ves. 129. National School.]-The owner of one of several lots having made a free gift of the same to the committee of a district national school, for the purpose of having a national school erected thereon-Held, that the word "nuisance" in the covenant must be restricted to its technical meaning; that the establishment of a national school is not a legal nuisance; and that the establishment of such a school on one of the above lots could not be restrained by the owner of a dwelling-house built on an adjoining lot, though his property would be depreciated thereby. Harrison v. Good, 40 L. J., Ch. 291; L. R. 11 Eq., 338; 24 L. T. 263; 19 W. R. 346. Small Pox Hospital.]-A hospital is not a noxious business within s. 112 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Withington Local Board v. Manchester Corporation, 62 L. J., Ch. 393; [1893] 2 Ch.19; 2 R. 367; 68 L. T. 330; 41 W. R. 306; 57 J. P. 340-C. A. Nor is it necessarily a nuisance. Baines v. Baker, Ambl. 158. But where such a hospital creates a nuisance, the fact that it was erected under general statutory authority (where such statutory authority does not directly and imperatively require the hospital to be so erected) is no answer to an action in respect of the nuisance. Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill, 50 L. J., Q. B. 353; 6 App. Cas. 193; 44 L. T. 653; 29 W. R. 617; 45 J. P. 664-H. L. (E.) Quære, whether, in the case of a hospital, the health of the public at large may not be considered to some extent as against the merely local inconvenience. Att.-Gen. v. Manchester Corporation, 62 L. J., Ch. 459; [1893] 2 Ch. 87; 3 R. 427; 68 L. T. 608; 41 W. R. 459; 57 J. P. 343. The defendants fitted up a cottage as a smallpox hospital. The grounds in which the cottage stood were bounded by a public road on one side, open fields on two other sides, and the plaintiff's property on the fourth side. The evidence being conflicting, a medical referee was appointed, who reported that there was appreciable danger to persons dwelling in the plaintiff's houses :- Held, that an injunction should be granted. Bendelow v. Wortley Union, 57 L. J., Ch. 762; 57 L. T. 849; 36 W. R. 168. Slaughter-houses.]-By a private act of parliament, all houses for the slaughtering of horses within 1,000 yards of a certain workhouse were to be deemed public nuisances and removed: but, if they existed before the act, the owners were to receive a compensation :-Held, that on an indictment framed at common law with counts on that act, the defendant might be convicted if he so carried on the trade as to make it a public muisance, and that he was not then entitled to any compensation. Rex v. Watts, 2 Car. & P. 486; 31 Ř. R. 686. Pollution of Stream.]-An owner of an ancient paper mill where the paper had been made from rags, introduced a new vegetable fibre, and carried on the works upon the same scale for making paper from this new material. For more than twenty years before this change the refuse arising from the paper manufacture had been discharged into a stream which ran past the plaintiff's house-Held, that the easement to which he was entitled was to be presumed to be. not a right to foul the stream by discharging into it the washing produced by the working-up of rags, but a right to discharge into it the washings produced by the manufacture of paper in the reasonable and proper course of such manufacture, using any proper materials for the purpose, but not increasing the pollution, and that the onus lay on the plaintiff to prove any increase of pollution. Baxendale v. MMurray, L. R. 2 Ch. 790; 16 W. R. 32. Where a man has a right to the use of an ancient stream of water flowing through his land, and sewage matter is precipitated into it, so as to pollute it and prevent his using it, he may obtain an injunction, to prevent its becoming an undoubted nuisance; and it is not competent to claim, as against him, a prescriptive right to discharge the sewage into the stream. Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners, 35 L. J., Ch. 382; L. R. 1 Ch. 349; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 308; 14 L. T. 154; 14 W. R. 562. Where a person empties foul water into a stream, reference will be had, in an action against that person for discharging the foul water, to the proportion and effect of such discharge on the stream. Ridge v. Midland Ry., 53 J. P. 55. In proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, s. 10, for causing or knowingly permitting sewage matter from sewers vested in the defendants to fall or flow into a stream, it is not a sufficient answer for the defendants to show that they have done nothing to cause or aggravate the nuisance complained of; they must go farther, and prove that they are using the best available means to prevent it. Yorkshire County Council v. Holmfirth Urban Sanitary Authority, 63 L. J., Q. B. 485; [1894] 2 Q. B. 842; 9 R. 462; 71 L. T. 217; 59 J. P. 213-C. A. The defendants were entitled as against a local board to drain sewage into certain sewers. sewers flowed into a stream which thus was The polluted. It appeared that the local board were | authority, under the Nuisances Removal Act, themselves in default in not having made pro- 1855, constructed in 1859 a system of sewers vision for dealing with the sewage in these sewers-Held, as a matter of discretion, that under the circumstances of the case an order ought not be made under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, against the defendants at the instance of the local board, they being themselves offenders against the act, and seeking to avoid performance of their duty under the Public Health Act, 1875. Kirkheaton Local Board v. Ainley, 61 L. J., Q. B. 812; [1892]_2_Q. B. 274; 67 L. T. 209; 41 W. R. 99; 57 J. P. 36— C. A. which conveyed the sewage of their district into a stream, and thus occasioned a nuisance in the adjoining district-Held, that the highway board of 1865 could not be compelled to take any steps to remedy the existing nuisance, but that they could be restrained from exercising their statutory powers so as to increase the nuisance. Att.-Gen. v. Richmond, 35 L. J., Ch. 597; L. R. 2 Eq. 306; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 544; 14 L. T. 398; 14 W. R. 686. W. occupied bleaching works on the O. B. under a lease. The improvement commissioners A vestry sanctioned the drainage of certain of Harrogate, who were the local board of houses by means of cesspools with overflow pipes health for Harrogate, commenced a system of connecting with main pipes. Sewage passed into drainage for Harrogate in 1862, and the sewage the main pipes, and from thence into a water- flowing through the C. stream into the O. B. course, and caused a nuisance within the district polluted its waters so that they could not be of an adjoining local board. The vestry had used for bleaching purposes. In 1868 W. filed power to take proceedings under the Nuisances his bill, praying for an injunction to restrain the Removals Act, 1855, and the Metropolis Local commissioners from permitting the sewage to Management Act, 1855, with respect to this flow into the O. B. The suit was compromised, nuisance, and the local board also had power to and by an agreement, dated the 1st of March, proceed under the Public Health Act. In an 1869, the commissioners agreed to pay him a ceraction by the local board against the vestry for tain sum for damages, and that they would not, an injunction to restrain the nuisance :-Held, after the 31st of that month, permit the sewage that it was not a proper ground for granting an to flow through the drains under their control injunction against a local board that they were into the O. B. The commissioners adopted the not properly exercising their powers or perform-irrigation system for the disposal of their sewage, ing their duties. Held, also, that the vestry, having sanctioned the system of draining by cesspools, could not now cut off the communications with the main pipes. Att.-Gen. v. Clerkenwell Vestry, 60 L. J., Ch. 788; [1891] 3 Ch. 527; 65 L. T. 312; 40 W. R. 185. Where a local board have not themselves constructed sewers which are a nuisance, but only permitted them to be used by inhabitants who have acquired a prescriptive right to use them, the local board do not 66 cause or suffer" sewage to flow into the Thames within the meaning of s. 64 of the Thames Navigation Act, 1866. Reg. v. Staines Local Board, 60 L. T. 261; 53 J. P. 358. which proved wholly inadequate. Sewage flowed down the C. stream into the O. B., and also the overflow from the irrigation farm. W. was obliged to take other bleaching works, as the waters of the O. B. were so polluted by the drainage that he could not use them. He therefore filed his bill against the commissioners, praying for an injunction in the terms of the agreement, and for an inquiry as to damages sustained by him. Relying on the performance of the agreement, W. took a new lease of the bleaching works :-Held, that he was entitled to an injunction and an inquiry as to damages as prayed. Wood v. High and Low Harrogate Improvement Commissioners, 22 W. R. 763. A public body was authorised by act of parlia- The council of a borough was bound by a local ment to construct and maintain a system of act of parliament, incorporating the Towns Imsewers and drains, and was enabled by compul-provement Clauses Act, 1847, effectually to drain sory purchase to obtain the necessary lands for the erection of works in a specified spot for the purification of the sewage, and for the conveyance of the effluent sewage-water along a specified course terminating in a specified spot. The public body was also prohibited from allowing the sewage to be discharged into a river until after it had been subjected to a process of purification prescribed by the act :-Held, that so long as the public body complied with the requirements of the act, they were not liable to an action for a nuisance in discharging the effluent sewage-water into the river at the authorised place. Lea Conservancy Board v. Hertford Corporation, 1 Cab. & E. 299; 48 J. P. 628. the town:-Held, that they were not justified in so carrying on their operations for this purpose as to drive away fish, and prevent cattle from drinking of the water of a river at a part seven miles below the town, and where it belonged to the plaintiff. Att.-Gen. v. Birmingham Corporation, 4 Kay & J. 528; 6 W. R. 811. By direction of a local board the sewage of a town had been by means of drainage conveyed to a river, which sewage, not having been completely deodorised before coming in contact with the river, had so polluted the stream passing B.'s property as to kill the fish therein, and otherwise cause a nuisance :-Held, that B. was entitled to an injunction to restrain the further pollution of the water passing by his property. Bidder v. Croydon Local Board, 6 L. T. 778. An annual highway board, meeting as a local VOL. X. Held, also, that, assuming the inhabitants of the borough to have had before their act a right to drain their houses into a river, that circumstance would not authorise the council discharging the sewage in such manner as to subject the plaintiff to the inconvenience of which he now complained. Ib. On an information to restrain a local board from pouring noxious matter into a stream through an outfall beyond their district, the local board tendered evidence to show that no damage was caused to anyone thereby:-Held, that this was immaterial, and an injunction was a matter of course. Workington Local Board v. Cockermouth Local Board, 44 L. J., Ch. 118; L. R. 18 Eq. 172; 30 L. T. 590; 22′ W. R. 619. But see Lillywhite v. Trimmer, post, col. 196. The Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, does not authorise the creation of a nuisance by rendering the water unfit for human and animal 7 |