use, in the drainage of towns into public rivers thereby directed. Att.-Gen. v. Kingston-uponThames Corporation, 34 L. J., Ch. 481; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 596; 12 L. T. 665; 13 W. R. 888.

The Lunatic Asylums Act, 1845, does not, by requiring the justices to build lunatic asylums, impliedly authorise them or their successors to allow the sewage from the asylums to create a nuisance. An injunction was therefore granted restraining the justices from allowing the sewage matter from the asylum to be discharged into a stream. Att.-Gen. v. Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum, 38 L. J., Ch. 265; L. R. 4 Ch. 146; 19 L. T. 708; 17 W. R. 240.

Works of a local board of health, producing an outfall of the sewage of a town above a wateringplace in a river adjoining lands are such an interference as to cause injury to the landowners. Whether this is established or not, they ought (if not consented to by such landowners) to be restrained by injunction, being the act of a public body exceeding its powers. Oldaker v. Hunt, 6 De G. M. & G. 376; 1 Jur. (N.s.) 578; 3 Eq. R. 671; 3 W. R. 296. Affirming 19 Beav. 485.

A local board of health is not justified in polluting the surface water which flows by an open gutter into a canal, by diverting it into a sewer, and passing the sewage into it. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Ry. v. Worksop Local Board, 23 Beav. 198; 26 L. J., Ch. 345; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 304; 5 W. R. 279.

A local authority, when draining their district under the powers of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Private Street Works Act, 1892, have, under ss. 15, 16, and 17 of the act of 1875, a right to discharge surface water into a natural stream or watercourse or canal on land belonging to another person within their district, so long as such surface water is, as required by s. 17, free from all excrementitious or other foul or noxious matter such as would affect or deteriorate the purity and quality of the water in such stream or watercourse. Durrant v. Branksome Urban Council, 66 L. J., Ch. 653; [1897] 2 Ch. 291; 76 L. T. 739; 46 W. R. Ï34 — C. A. Affirming 61 J. P. 472.

Sand and silt are not "deleterious matter within the meaning of s. 17 if the stream is already naturally charged therewith. Ib.

Any damage caused by the proper exercise by the local authority of the right in question is a natter for compensation under s. 308 of the act of 1875, and forms no ground for an injunction against the local authority or for an action for damages by the owner of the land on which is the bed of the stream. Ib.

A waterworks company, by their special act, incorporating the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, was empowered to construct a reservoir in a certain locality, and to use the waters which flowed into a certain river, but the act gave the company no power of acquiring the land compulsorily, and did not provide for the reservoir being of any particular construction; it contained provisions for keeping up the supply of water in the river. Another private act of the company, passed after the construction of the reservoir, recognised it as an existing work, and gave the company certain rights against millowners on the stream as regarded the quantity of water, but saved all other rights. The company's works fouled the river with mud, so inuch as to make the water unfit for the purposes of the trade of silk-dyeing theretofore carried on

at mills of the plaintiff on the river bank:— Held, that there was nothing in the acts to take away his right to have the water pure and in its natural state, or to deprive him of his right of action for the injury sustained thereby, and therefore (the damage having been proved to be substantial) to avoid multiplicity of actions the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the nuisance. Clowes v. Staffordshire Waterworks Co., 42 L. J., Ch. 107; L. R. 8 Ch. 125; 27 L. T. 521; 21 W. R. 32.

A bill filed to restrain a local board of health from discharging sewage into their river so as to be a nuisance and injury to the plaintiff. The court, finding that the plaintiff sustained no material injury, and that the nuisance, if any, had been to a great extent abated since the filing of the bill, refused the injunction and dismissed the bill, but without costs, the plaintiff appearing to have had some justification for instituting the suit. In cases of this class, where important public interests are involved, such as the improvement of the drainage of a town, the court will protect the private rights of the individual if affected in any material degree, but will at the same time have regard to the nature and extent of the alleged injury or nuisance and to the balance of inconvenience. Lillywhite v. Trimmer, 36 L. J., Ch. 525; 16 L. T. 318; 15 W. R. 763.

By the Leeds Improvement Amendment Act, 1818, which incorporated the clauses of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1817, as to making and maintaining public sewers and the drainage of houses, "except so far as they or any of them are inconsistent with the provisions of this act, or are expressly varied or excepted by this act"; and by s. 6, the corporation of Leeds was authorised to construct one or more trunk or other sewer or sewers, sufficiently capacious to receive the foul and drainage water and filth of the town, and to convey the same into the river Aire :-Held, that the power to drain into the river was controlled by the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, s. 24, and also by s. 107, though that clause was not expressly incorporated in the local act; and that the corporation was not authorised by the local act to create a nuisance by draining into the river. Att.-Gen. v. Leeds Corporation, 39 L. J., Ch. 711; L. R. 5 Ch. 583; 19 W. R. 19. Affirming 22 L. T. 330.

Though the river Aire was polluted before it received the drainage of Leeds, the landowners on the banks were held entitled to restrain the further pollution. Ib.

Compulsory Entry on Land to Construct Sewer.]-L., the owner of a meadow, received notice from the rural sanitary authority that they intended to enter and make a sewer under the meadow, and this being objected to, they entered forcibly. An action of trespass and injunction being brought by L., on the ground that the sewer would create a nuisance :-Held, that the order of justices mentioned in s. 305 of Public Health Act, 1875, does not apply when proceedings are taken under s. 16. Lamacraft v. St. Thomas Sanitary Authority, 42 L. T. 365; 44 J. P. 441.

Held, also, that the statute does not authorise a sewer which would cause a nuisance, and the injunction was granted accordingly, the jury having found that a nuisance would be created. Ib.

Pollution of Well.]-No one has a right to use his own land in such a way as to be a nuisance to his neighbour, and therefore if a man puts filth or poisonous matter on his land, he must take care that it does not escape so as to poison water which his neighbour has a right to use, although his neighbour may have no property in such water at the time it is fouled. Ballard v. Tomlinson, 54 L. J., Ch. 454; 29 Ch. D. 115; 52 L. T. 942; 33 W. R. 533; 49 J. P. 692-C. A.

room :-Held, that this was such a nuisance as a court of equity would restrain by injunction. Inchbald v. Robinson, L. R. 4 Ch. 388; 20 L. T. 259; 17 W. R. 459.

The mere assembling of crowds of persons, going to and from the performances at a circus held in a covered building, is not necessarily a nuisance which a court of equity will restrain. Ib.

Cattle Traffic on Railway.]-To the occupiers of houses near a railway station the noise of the cattle and drovers was a nuisance which, but for an act which empowered the company to acquire lands in such places as should be deemed eligible for the purpose of receiving, loading or keeping any cattle, &c., conveyed or intended to be conveyed by railway, would have been actionable. There was no negligence in the mode in which the company conducted the business :-Held, that the purpose for which the land was acquired being expressly authorised by the act, and being incidental and necessary to the authorised use of the railway for the cattle traffic, the company were authorised to do what they did, and were not bound to choose a site more convenient to other persons; and that the adjoining occupiers were not entitled to an injunction to restrain the company. Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill (50 L. J., Q. B. 353; 6 App. Cas. 193) distinguished. L. B. & S. C. Ry. v. Truman, 55 L. J., Ch. 354; 11 App. Cas. 45; 54 L. T. 250; 34 W. R. 657; 50 J. P. 388-H. L. (E.)

Noise and Disturbance-Reasonable Exercise of Trade.]—A defendant erected a rolling-mill with steam hammers near some houses of the plaintiff, the vibration and noise of which in jured the building and caused the tenants to quit. To an action for the nuisance thereby occasioned, he pleaded that the grievances complained of were caused by the reasonable and proper exercise of a trade reasonably and properly carried on :-Held, not to be a reasonable and proper exercise of a trade. Scott v. Firth, 4 F. & F. 349; 10 L. T. 240.

The noise and vibration occasioned by a steamengine and circular saw considered an annoyance amounting to a nuisance, in respect of which an inquiry as to damages was granted. Gort (Viscountess) v. Clark, 18 L. T. 343; 16 W. R. 569.

felt as a nuisance, and were not complained of. But in 1873 the physician erected a consultingroom at the end of his garden, and then the noise and vibration became a nuisance to him. He accordingly brought an action for an injunction:- Held, that the defendant had not acquired a right to an easement of making a noise and vibration, and the injunction was granted. Sturges v. Bridgman, 48 L. J., Ch. 785; 11 Ch. D. 852; 41 L. T. 219; 28 W. R. 200.

In considering whether any act is a nuisance, regard must be had not only to the thing done, but to the surrounding circumstances. What would be a nuisance in one locality might not be so in another. Ib.

As a provisional order, subsequently confirmed by act of parliament, under which an electric lighting company is forme, must be read together with the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, the company are not exempted from liability to an action for nuisance. Where, therefore, injury was caused to a publichouse by noise and vibration, so as to interfere with the enjoyment of the lessee, and to cause injury to the structure of the premises, an injunction was granted against an electric lighting company at the suit of the lessee and reversioner respectively. Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., 64 L. J., Ch. 216; [1895] 1 Ch. 287; 12 R. 112; 72 L. T. 34; 43 W. K. 238— C. A.

In a lease of two rooms in a building there was a covenant in the usual terms by the lessor for quiet enjoyment. The lessor subsequently let a large room above these two rooms to S., for thirty shillings a week, for the purpose of being used for dancing classes and entertainments. The lessee of the two rooms below complained of a nuisance occasioned by this user of the room in respect of (1) noise and vibration, and (2) offensive behaviour on the staircase by persons who frequented the room, and brought an action against his lessor and S., claiming an injunction:-Held, that neither of the defendants was legally liable for the nuisance upon the staircase, but that both defendants were liable under the general law for the nuisance as to noise. Jenkins v. Jackson, 58 L. J., Ch. 124; 49 Ch. D. 71; 60 L. T. 105; 37 W. R. 253.

contests held at the club premises. Bellamy v. Wells, 60 L. J., Ch. 156; 63 L. T. 635; 39 W. R. 158.

Where cabs, under the direction of the police authorities, assembled in P. gardens every night between 9 and 11 p.m. for the purpose of taking persons home from an exhibition, the court refused on motion to grant an injunction against the defendants, the proprietors of the exhibition. Germaine v. London Exhibitions, Limited, 75 L. T. 101.

Smoke.]-It is not necessary in an information under the Sanitary Act, 1866, s. 19 (repealed), to show that black smoke sent forth from a chimney is injurious to health as well as a nuisance. Gaskell v. Bayley, 30 L. T. 516.

The Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, s. 108, imposes a penalty of 407. upon anyone so negligently using a furnace as not to consume the smoke. The Birmingham Improvement Act, 1851, incorporated this section, with a proviso that the magistrate may remit the penalty if he is of opinion that the person summoned has consumed the smoke as far as possibie :-Held, that the words "as far as possible" are not to be understood absolutely, but are to be construed as far as possible consistently with the carrying on of the ordinary trade for which the furnace is used. Cooper v. Wooley, 36 L. J., M. C. 27; L. R. 2 Ex. 88; 15 L. T. 539; 15 W. R. 450. See Crump v. Lambert, post, col. 204.

Section 91 of the Public Health Act, 1875, applies to black smoke allowed to be sent forth out of chimneys of coal mines. Patterson v. Chamber Colliery Co., 56 J. P. 200.

A person summoned under this section for allowing smoke to be emitted from the chimney of his brewery so as to constitute a nuisance is not entitled to call evidence as to the construction of the furnace. Weekes v. King, 53 L. T. 51; 15 Cox, C. C. 723; 49 J. P. 709.

Evidence of negligence on the part of a servant is not sufficient to make the owner or occupier of trade premises within the metropolis liable under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 128, s. 1, for not seeing that the smoke is effectually consumed. Chisholm v. Doulton, 58 L. J., M. C. 133; 22 Q. B. D. 736; 60 L. T. 966; 37 W. R. 749; 16 Cox, C. C. 675; 53 J. P. 550.

On River.]-A steam-vessel not carrying passengers, but employed in towing ships for hire to and from the various docks on the Thames, for the most part between London Bridge and the Nore Light, but occasionally going eastward of the Nore Light as far as the Downs, is within 19 & 20 Vict. c. 107, s. 1, when towing a ship from Limehouse to Blackwall. Walker v. Evans, 2 El. & El. 356; 29 L. J., M. C. 22; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 71; 1 L. T. 59 ; 8 W. R.

61.

Obstructing Passage of.]-Where the defendant had obstructed the passage of smoke from flues used by the plaintiffs for several years, but their right to which was doubtful, by placing tiles upon the top of the chimney-pots, a mandatory injunction was granted upon interlocutory motion to compel him to remove the tiles. Herrey v. Smith, 1 Kay & J. 389. See also 22 Beav. 299.

Noxious Vapours.]-Smoke unaccompanied with noise or with noxious vapour, noise alone, and offensive odours alone, although not injurious to health, may severally constitute a nuisance. The material question in all such cases is, whether the annoyance produced is such as materially to interfere with the ordinary comfort of human existence. Crump v. Lambert, L. R. 3 Eq. 409; 15 L. T. 600; 15 W. R. 417. Affirmed, 17 L. T. 133.

An injunction granted to restrain the issuing of smoke and effluvia from a factory chimney, and the making of noise in the factory, although it was situated in a manufacturing town: it being proved that such sn.oke, etiluvia, and noise, were a material addition to previouslyexisting nuisances. Ib.

A market gardener, whose premises adjoined those of a gas company, brought an action against the company for the injury done to his crops, by reason of the noxious matter issuing from the company's works. During the trial, the judge suggested a reference to an arbitrator, who was to determine as to the injury, and as to what should be done between the parties. The reference having taken place, the arbitrator made his award in respect of the damage sustained up to the date of the award, and no evi

Ordinary Chimney.]-The entering of smoke discharged from the defendant's chimneys into the plaintiff's house amounted, in contemplation of law, to a nuisance; but the fact of all buildings erected in the locality on which the defendant's were, being declared common nuisances by statute, was not, per se, sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict in an action, in which the nuisance complained of arose from the smoke. Rich v. Basterfield, 4 C. B. 783; 2 Car. & K. 257; 16 L. J., C. P. 273; 11 Jur.

696

Making fires and causing smoke to issue from a chimney, the erection of the chimney itself not being a nuisance, but only the use made of it, is not a ground for an action by a reversioner of adjoining premises, although his tenants have given notice to quit in consequence, and the premises would sell for less if the nuisance was continued. Simpson v. Savage, 1 C. B. (N.S.) 347; 26 L. J., C. P. 50; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 161; 5 W R. 147.

prospective damage, a verdict was entered up for the sum awarded. The company subsequently increased their works:-Held, that the market gardener was entitled to a perpetual injunction to restrain the further manufacture of the gas in a manner injurious to his crops, the award of the arbitrator being, under the circumstances, equivalent to 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.

The plaintiff, the owner and occupier of a mansion house and grounds adjoining a railway and sidings on which was a shed used for cleaning the engines, complained of the smoke and noxious vapour from a large number of engines stabled at the sidings and shed, arising during the process of lighting the engine fires. As the nuisance complained of was not abated, the plaintiff brought an action for an injunction to restrain the railway company from causing or permitting smoke or vapour to issue from their shed and premises so as to occasion a nuisance to the plaintiff. The company contended that