the statute authorised them to commit even a doors which he kept locked every night. There nuisance, provided they worked their line pro- was a space between the line of area railings in perly, and used due precautions, and that the the street and the urinal door nearest to the use of the shed and sidings for cleaning their street, which space he shut off from the street engines and relighting the fires was a necessary with an iron gate placed flush with the line of and legitimate one, and incidental to the railings. This gate was never locked. It being reasonable enjoyment of their statutory powers. proved that persons habitually used the space and that the plaintiff had no rights as against between the door and the gate in such a manner them-Held that the statute had not deprived as to cause a nuisance to the neighbours, which the plaintiff of his ordinary rights, and did not he took no steps to prevent :-Held, that he was authorise the nuisance complained of; that the responsible for such user, it being a probable emission of smoke and noxious vapour during consequence of the manner in which he had the operations of cleaning the engines and re-arranged the premises. Chibnall v. Paul, 29 W. lighting the engine fires was not a necessary evil incident to the proper working of the line, or a reasonable user of the land for the purposes of the railway within the scope and meaning of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed, with costs. Smith v. Midland Ry., 37 L. T. 224; 25 W. R. 861.

The Shotts Iron Company possess valuable mining leases of the iron ore under the estate of, inter alia, Penicuik, under the condition, not to calcine within a certain area. They calcined beyond this area, but near to the boundary of the lands of Glencorse. The caleining was carried on in open bings eight feet high. The proprietor of Glencorse, on the ground, inter alia, that his ornamental plantations were being destroyed by the fumes from the bings, raised an action concluding for interdict against the company calcining within two miles of his estate-Held, that the Glencorse plantations had been injured by the calcining, and that the pursuer was entitled to interdict to prevent the company from carrying on their calcining within one mile of his lands, in the same manner hitherto pursued by them, or in any other manner whereby noxious vapours might be caused to pass over the pursuer's lands, or any part thereof, to the damage or injury of his plantations or estate. Shotts Iron Company v. Inglis, 7 App. Cas. 518-H. L. (Sc.).

R. 536.

As the erection of a urinal is not necessarily a nuisance, the provision of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, s. 88, authorising a vestry to erect urinals, does not empower them to erect one where it will be a nuisance to the owners of adjoining property, there being no words in the act which expressly or by necessary implication authorise them to create a nuisance. Vernon v. St. James, Westminster, Vestry, 50 L. J., Ch. 81; 16 Ch. D. 449; 44 L. T. 229; 29 W. R. 222-C. A.

The court, being satisfied upon the evidence that the urinal intended would not of necessity be a public nuisance, and also that it was neither certain nor probable that the vestry was exceeding nor would exceed its powers, and that the vestry was not influenced by any improper motive, dissolved an injunction which had been granted. Biddulph v. St. George's, Hanover Square, Vestry, 3 De G. J. & S. 493; 33 L. J., Ch. 411; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 953; 8 L. T. 558; 11 W. R. 739.

A local board is not entitled, under s. 39 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to erect a public urinal on private property so as to be a nuisance to the owner. Sellors v. Matlock Bath Local Board, 14 Q. B. D. 928 ; 52 L. T. 762.

Escape of Water.]-An occupier of land may maintain an action against anyone who allows Section 334 of the Public Health Act, 1875, filth or other noxious things produced on the does not relieve the proprietors of the businesses latter's land to interfere with the reasonable mentioned from liability for a public nuisance enjoyment of his land by the former. Hurdman brought by the Attorney-General for its abate-v. N. E. Ry., 47 L. J., C. P. 368; 3 C. P. D. 168 ; ment, nor from their ordinary common law 38 L. T. 339; 26 W. R. 489-C. A. liability to an owner whose property is in- Turner v. Mirfield, 34 Beav. 390. juriously affected, e.g. by the giving off of noxious fumes. Att.-Gen. v. Logan, [1891] 2 Q. B. 100; 65 L. T. 162 ; 55 J. P. 615.

Blasting.]-A railway company in making a cutting through rock, at a short distance from a private dwelling-house, conducted its operations by blasting, and pieces of stone were hurled on to the buildings and into the garden. An injunction was granted, as prayed. Arnold 7. Furness Ry., 22 W. R. 613.

A person was engaged in blasting a stone quarry, and, by using an excessive charge of pow ler, caused a great quantity of stones to fall upon a public highway, and upon houses adjacent to the quarry and highway :-Held, that he was rightly convicted upon an indictment which charged him with a nuisance to the highway. Reg. v. Mutters, L. & C. 491; 34 L. J., M. C. 22; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 144; 11 L. T. 386; 13 W. R. 100; 10 Cox, C. C. 6.

Erection of Urinal.]-An owner of a publichouse erected a urinal in a private passage leading out of the street, and enclosed it between

S. P.,

Therefore, if anyone by an artificial erection on his own land causes water, even though only arising from natural rainfall, to pass into his neighbour's land, he is liable to an action at the suit of the person so injured. This is, however, subject to the principle that the owner of land holds his right to its enjoyment subject to any annoyance arising from the natural user by his neighbour of his land, as in the case of an adjoining mine owner. Ib.

A person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so. is primâ facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage. Rylands v. Fletcher, 37 L. J., Ex. 161; L. R. 3 H. L. 330; 19 L. T. 220. Affirming 4 H. & C. 263; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 603; 14 W. R. 799Ex. Ch.

Escape of Sewage.]-The plaintiff and the defendant were respectively occupiers of adjoining

set fire to the plaintiff's stack of hay standing on a neighbouring farm. The engine was constructed in conformity with the Locomotive Acts, 1861, 1865; at the time of the accident it was being driven at a proper pace, and the defendant's servants were guilty of no negligence in the management of it :— Held, that the defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the injury done to the stack, upon the ground, that the engine, being a dangerous machine, an action was maintainable at common law, and the Locomotive Acts did not restrict the liability of the defendant. Powell v. Fall, 49 L. J., Q. B. 428; 5 Q. B. D. 597; 43 L. T. 562—C. A. See Rex v. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30; 1 N. & M. 690; 2 L. J., M. C. 26.

houses. An old drain which commenced on the defendant's premises, and thence passed under and received the drainage of several other houses, turned back under the defendant's house, and thence under the cellar of the plaintiff's house, and ultimately into a public sewer. The part of the return drain which passed through the defendant's premises being decayed, the sewage escaped, and flowing into the plaintiff's cellar did damage. The defendant was unaware of the existence of this return drain, and consequently of its want of repair :-Held, that the defendant was liable for the damage done to the plaintiff for that defendant's duty was to keep the sewage which he himself was bound to receive from passing from his own premises to the plaintiff's premises otherwise than along the old accustomed channel, and that this duty was independent of negligence Overcrowding House.]-An overcrowded house, on his part, and independent of his knowledge occupied by one family, is a nuisance within 18 or ignorance of the existence of the drain. & 19 Vict. c. 121 (repealed), and Part 2 of 29 & Humphreys v. Cousins, 46 L. J., C. P. 438; 230 Vict. c. 90 (repealed), which by s. 14 are to be

C. P. D. 239; 36 L. T. 180; 25 W. R. 371.

In the absence of negligence a local authority is not liable, under s. 19 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for a nuisance caused by the overflow of a sewer. Stretton's Derby Brewery Co. v. Derby Corporation, 63 L. J., Ch. 135; [1894] 1 Ch. 431; 8 R. 608; 69 L. T. 791; 42 W. R. 583.

Thistle Seeds blown on Adjoining Land.]-An occupier of land is under no duty towards his neighbour to periodically cut the thistles naturally growing on his land, so as to prevent them from seeding; and if, owing to his neglect to cut them, the seeds are blown on to his neighbour's land and do damage, he is not liable. Giles v. Walker, 59 L. J., Q. B. 416; 24 Q. B. D. 656; 62 L. T. 933; 38 W. R. 782; 54 J. P. 599.

Poisonous Tree on Boundary Fence.]-A person having a dangerous thing upon his land, and being under no obligation to fence against his neighbour's cattle, is not liable for damages caused by the dangerous thing to his neighbour's cattle when trespassing on his land. Rylands v. Fletcher (37 L. J., Ex. 161; L. R. 3 H. L. 330) discussed and distinguished. Ponting v. Noakes, 63 L. J., Q. B. 549; [1894] 2 Q. B. 281; 10 R. 265; 70 L. T. 842; 42 W. R. 506; 58 J. P. 559.

construed together, and justices have power in such a case to make an order under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 12, notwithstanding that s. 29, giving them power to deal with overcrowded dwellings, is limited to cases where the inhabitants consist of more than one family. Rye Union v. Payne, 44 L. J., M. C. 148; 32 L. T. 757; 23 W. R. 692.

A notice directed to a person officially in charge of a night shelter that "the premises were so overcrowded as to be injurious or dangerous to the health of the inmates," and a summons and order founded upon such notice, are sufficient to convey to the recipient that the nuisance complained of related to the overcrowding of a house or part of a house as referred to in the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 2, sub-s. 1 (e). The temporary occupiers of such night shelters are equivalent to inmates of such house. Reg. v. Slade, 65 L. J., M. C. 108; 74 L. T. 656; 18 Cox, C. C. 316; 60 J. P. 358.

b. Works Constructed under Statutory Powers.

Whether Works within Statutory Powers.] -Where there has been an excess of the statutory powers granted to a company, but no injury has been occasioned to any individual, and there is none which is imminent, or of irreparable consequence, the Attorney-General alone can obtain an injunction to restrain the exorbitance. Ware v. Regent's Canal Co., 3 De G. & J. 212; 28 L. J., Ch. 153; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 25; 7 W. R. 67.

Water dripping from Roof.]-The defendant, being possessed of a messuage adjoining the plaintiff's garden, erected a cornice upon his messuage, projecting over the garden, whereby rain-water flowed from the cornice into the garden and damaged the same :-Held, that the erection of the cornice was a nuisance from which the law would infer injury to the plaintiff and that he was entitled to maintain an action in respect thereof, without proof that rain had fallen between the period of the erec-739. tion of the cornice and the commencement of the action. Fay v. Prentice, 1 C. B. 828; 14 L. J., C. P. 298; 9 Jur. 877.

Obstruction to View.]-The erection of a building will not be restrained because it injures the plaintiff by obstructing the view of his place of business. Butt v. Imperial Gas Co., L. R. 2 Ch. 158; 16 L. T. 820; 15 W. R. 92.

The court has power to interfere with a public body in the exercise of powers conferred by act of parliament, where the exercise is not bonâ fide. Biddulph v. St. George's, Hanover Square, Vestry, 3 De G. J. & S. 493; 33 L. J., Ch. 411; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 953; 8 L. T. 558; 11 W. R.

Where powers are so conferred, the court will not assume that the exercise of them will create a nuisance. Ib.

Where a nuisance is caused by any act which, independently of the statute, would have given a cause of action to any person, a public body may be made liable in damages, or be restrained by injunction, unless they can show a justification under the powers of the statute. Glossop v. Heston and Isleworth Local Board, 49 L. J., Ch. Sparks from Engine.]-Whilst the defendant's 89; 12 Ch. D. 102; 40 L. T. 736. S. P., National traction-engine was being driven by his servants Telephone Co. v. Baker, 62 L. J., Ch. 699; [1893] along a highway, some sparks escaping from it | 2 Ch. 186; 3 R. 318; 68 L. T. 283; 57 J. P. 373.

See also Lea Conservancy Board v. Hertford | from the railway showed at least that there was Corporation, 1 Cab. & E. 299; 48 J. P. 628; and nothing unreasonable in a clause of a statute L. B. & S. C. Ry. v. Truman, 55 L. J., Ch. 354; giving such unqualified authority. Rex v. Pease, 11 App. Cas. 45; 54 L. T. 250; 34 W. R. 657; + B. & Ad. 30; 1 N. & M. 690; 2 L. J., M. C. 26. 50 J. P. 388-H. L. (E.)

2. MATERIALS DANGEROUS TO LIFE AND PROPERTY.

Dangerous Building.]—If an ancient erection, as a house, is suffered to become ruinous, so as to become dangerous, this is a nuisance. Fisher v. Prowse, 2 B. & S. 770; 31 L. J., Q. B. 212; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1208; 6 L. T. 711.

If a public body, which has powers given it by a statute for the performance of a particular object, exercises its powers so as to injure the property of others, it is responsible for the injury, unless the act done was absolutely necessary for the performance of the object of the statute. 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. S. P., Metropolitan Asylum Dis- A stack of chimneys belonging to a house close trict v. Hill, 50 L. J., Q. B. 353; 6 App. Cas. 193; to a highway, which, by reason of a fire, were in 44 L. T. 653; 29 W. R. 617; 45 J. P. 664. immediate danger of falling on the highway, were Sellors v. Matlock Bath Local Board, 14 Q. B. D. thrown down by some firemen :-Held, that they 928; 52 L. T. 762. Smith v. Midland Ry., were justified in so doing, and were not answer37 L. T. 224; 25 W. R. 861. Vernon v. St.able for damages unavoidably done to an adjoinJames, Westminster, Vestry, 50 L. J., Ch. 81; 16 ing house of a third person. Dewey v. White, Ch. D. 449; 44 L. T. 229; 29 W. R. 222. M. & M. 56. The authority over sewers, and the drainage powers given by Parliament to local boards, do not authorise the committal of a nuisance by the boards in their exercise of such powers. Att.Gen. v. Hackney Local Board, 44 L. J., Ch. 545; L. R. 20 Eq. 626. S. P., Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 2 N. R. 312; 1 H. & M. 298; 9 L. T. 139; 11 W. R. 820. 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.

Public works ordered by act of parliament must be so executed so as not to interfere with the private rights of individuals, and in deciding on the right of a single proprietor to an injunction to restrain such interference, the circumstance that a vast population will be injured (e.g., by remaining undrained) unless his rights are invaded, is one which the court cannot take into consideration. Att.-Gen. v. Birmingham Corporation, 4 Kay & J. 528; 6 W. R. 811.

Warehousing Inflammable Matter.] - An indictment charging that a person "unlawfully, knowingly, and wilfully did deposit in a warehouse belonging to him, near to divers streets and highways, and to divers dwelling-houses of her Majesty's subjects, divers large and excessive quantities of a dangerous, ignitable and explosive fluid, called wood-naphtha, and did keep in the warehouse, and near to the streets, the fluid in such large, excessive and dangerous quantities, whereby the queen's subjects passing along were in great danger of their lives and property, and were kept in great alarm and terror, ad commune nocumentum," discloses an indictable offence. Reg. v. Lister, Dears. & B. 209; 26 L. J., M. C. 196; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 570; 5 W. R. 626; 7 Cox C. C. 342.

Upon the trial of such an indictment, it is a question of fact for the jury whether the keeping and depositing or the manufacturing of such substances really does create danger to life and property as alleged, and the liability to ignition ab extra may properly be taken into their consideration. Ib.

The defendants had statutory powers to lay down tramways, but no express powers to purchase land or to construct stabling. Where, therefore, they constructed stables which occasioned offensive smells and constituted a nuisance Where persons for their own convenience, and to the plaintiff, an injunction was granted against in order to dry an extremely dangerous and them. The fact that they had taken all reason-inflammable material, brought it in large quanable care to prevent a nuisance was no legal excuse. Rapier v. London Tramways Co., 63 L. J.. Ch. 36; [1893] 2 Ch. 588; 2 R. 448; 69 L. T. 361-C. A.

When statutory powers are conferred under circumstances in which they may be exercised with a result not causing any nuisance, and new and unforeseen circumstances arise which render the exercise of them impracticable without causing one, the persons so exercising them are liable to an indictment. Reg. v. Bradford Navigation Co., 6 B. & S. 631; 34 L. J., Q. B. 191; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 769; 13 W. R. 892.

Under statutory authority a railway was made parallel and adjacent to a public highway, and in some places came within five yards of it. It did not appear whether or not the line could have been made in those instances to pass at a greater distance. Horses on the highway were frightened by the engines on the railway. On an indictment against the railway company for a nuisance-Held, that this interference must be taken to have been contemplated and sanctioned by the legislature, since the words in the company's act authorising the use of engines were unqualified, and the public benefit derived

tities upon property in a densely-populated neighbourhood, and after protest by the owner of adjoining valuable property, the court, at his instance, granted an interim injunction to restrain them from permitting the material to remain upon the property, and from bringing any more of it there, he undertaking forthwith to indict them for the nuisance, and to abide by any order as to damages. Hepburn v. Lordan, 2 H. & M. 345; 34 L. J., Ch. 293; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 132; 13 W. R. 368.

Upon appeal, it was agreed that the injunction should be dissolved, the parties undertaking not to bring in any more jute, without prejudice to any question in the suit. S. C., 11 Jur. (N.S.)

254; 13 W. R. 1004-L. J.

Petroleum Keeping otherwise than for Private Use.]-All petroleum proper, whether giving off an inflammable vapour at under 100 degrees or not, is within the Petroleum Acts, 1862, s. 1 (repealed), and 1868, s. 3 (repealed); and therefore the keeping of any petroleum proper, otherwise than for private use, within fifty yards of a dwelling or storehouse, without a license, is prohibited by the act of 1868, s. 4

LAW.

Injuring Property by.]-See CRIMINAL

4. ON HIGHWAYS.

Repairs by Private Person.]-It is an indictable nuisance to obstruct or to employ others to obstruct a public highway or a footway, by placing earth and bricks thereon, taking up the pavement and opening trenches for the purpose of laying down service pipes for the supply of gas from public mains to private houses, unless those who do or authorise such acts have parliamentary

3. SPRING GUNS AND OTHER ENGINES. Liability for.] Before 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 31, a trespasser, having knowledge that there were spring guns in a wood, although he might be ignorant of the particular spots where they were placed, could not maintain an action for an injury received in consequence of his accident-powers for the purpose. Such acts cannot be ally treading on a latent wire communicating with a gun, and thereby letting it off. Ilott v. Wilkes, 3 B. & Ald. 304; 22 R. R. 400.

Where a defendant, for the protection of his property, some of which had been stolen, set a spring gun, without notice, in a garden completely walled round, and at a distance from his house, and the plaintiff, who had climbed over the wall in pursuit of a strayed fowl, was shot : -Held, that an action was maintainable, and the defendant liable in damages. Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bing. 628; 1 M. & P.607; 6 L. J. (0. s.) C. P. 146; 29 R. R. 657. S. P., Jay v. Whitfield, 3 B. & Ald. 308, cit. arg.; 4 Bing. 644, cit. arg. The plaintiff entered the defendant's garden at night and without his permission to search for a stray fowl, and, whilst looking closely into some bushes, he came in contact with a wire which caused something to explode with a loud noise, knocking him down, and slightly injuring his face and eyes-Held, that the defendant was not liable for this injury at common law, nor, in the absence of evidence that it was caused by a spring gun or other engine calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 18. s. 1. Wootton v. Dawkins, 2 C. B. (N.S.) 412. S. C.in Q. B. 5 W. R. 469.

A declaration alleged that the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully set and concealed a dog-spear, being an engine calculated to do grievous bodily harm as well to the subjects of the Queen as to their dogs happening to run upon the same, among the bushes, near a public footway running through a close of the defendant's, by means whereof a dog of the plaintiff's, with which he was going on foot along the footway, and which, by reason of a rabbit having crossed the footway in his view, had, against the will of and unavoidably by the plaintiff, begun to pursue, and was in pursuit of the rabbit, ran upon the dog-spear and was wounded. A plea, that the defendant set and concealed the engine for the purpose of preserving his game, and of disabling and killing dogs that might come upon his close, lest they should pursue and destroy the game, whereof the plaintiff had notice, is a good answer, even without the allegation of notice. Jordin v Cramp, 8 M. & W. 782; 5 Jur. 1113; 11 L. J., Ex. 74.

justified by the occupiers of the houses as an exercise of the right of every householder to make such a temporary obstruction of a highway or a footway as may be necessarily incident to the enjoyment of his property. Reg. v. Longton Gas Co., 2 El. & El. 651; 29 L. J., M. C. 118; 6 Jur. (N.s.) 601; 2 L. T. 14; 8 W. R. 293; 8 Cox, C. C. 317.

Nor can a corporation, without statutory powers in that behalf, claim to break up roadways for the purpose of repairing water pipes under any prescriptive right, for highway authorities cannot grant power to commit a nuisance. Preston Corporation V. Fulwood Local Board, 53 L. T. 718; 34 W. R. 196; 50 J. P. 228.

Cutting Ditches.]-Ditches fifteen inches wide and ten inches deep, cut completely across the strips of grass land at the sides of roads, so as to be dangerous to persons walking along the strips, amount to a nuisance. Nicol v. Beaumont, 53

L. J., Ch. 853; 50 L. T. 112.

Heap at side of Highway.]-A heap of road scrapings placed by persons on their own land at the side of a roadway in such a manner as to be likely to cause horses on the highway to shy, is a public nuisance. Brown v. Eastern and Midlands Ry., 58 L. J., Q. B. 212 ; 22 Q. B. D. 391— C. A. Affirming 60 L. T. 266 ; 53 J. P. 342.

Unfenced Quarry.]-Two highways led across a waste; in the waste, and near to each of the highways there was a quarry, unfenced and unguarded; a person crossing from one highway to the other in the dark, fell into the quarry, and was injured-Held, that no action lay against the owner of the quarry, without showing that the quarry was so near the highway as to be a public nuisance. Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. (N.S.) 731; 29 L. J., C. P. 203; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 897; Ì L. T. 440; 8 W. R. 277.

Hole in Roadway.]-The municipality of B., incorporated under New South Wales Acts, No. 13, of 1858, and No. 12 of 1867, and having thereunder the care, construction, and management of the roads and streets within their If a man places dangerous traps baited with municipality, constructed therein a barrel drain flesh in his own ground, so near to a highway, or into which ran an open drain, the brickwork of to the premises of another, that dogs passing which having broken away, and not having been along the highway, or kept in his neighbour's repaired, a hole was caused, into which the premises, must probably be attracted by their plaintiff's horse fell. In an action claiming instinct into the trap, and in consequence of damages against the municipality (a) for such act his neighbour's dogs are so attracted and thereby injured, an action on the case lies. Townsend v. Wathen. 9 East, 277; 9 R. R. 553. Quære, whether a person is authorised in fixing dog-spears in his woods, or whether he is answerable in an action for an injury done to a dog. Deane v. Clayton, 2 Marsh. 577; 1 Moore, 203; 7 Taunt. 489; 18 R. R. 553. And see Sears v. Lyon, 2 Stark. 317; 20 R. R. 688.

negligence in constructing the street, (b) for negligence in keeping and maintaining the street, and not repairing the drain, gutter, or sewer in the said street, the chief justice directed the jury that the defendants under their act of incorporation were not liable for the result of any mere non-feasance; that if they thought fit to construct a sewer, and did the work in SO negligent a manner as to bring about the acci