and vapours from the new works:-Held, that he | case of young trees or shrubs which might be was not barred by delay, but that he was entitled transplanted, quære. The owner of a tree to an injunction as to the whole of the new cannot acquire the right for it to overhang his works, although one of the chimneys was erected neighbour's land either by prescription or the more than twenty years before the filing of the Statute of Limitations. Lemmon v. Webb, 64 bill. Savile v. Kilner, 26 L. T. 277. L. J., Ch. 205; [1895] A. C. 1; 11 R. 116; 71 L. T. 647; 59 J. P. 564-H. L. (E.) Onus Probandi.]—If a defendant to a bill to restrain a nuisance committed by him sets up the defence of prescriptive right, the burden lies upon him to prove the prescription, and he must prove affirmatively that a legal nuisance has been in fact committed during twenty years before the filing of the bill. Ball v. Ray, L. R. 8 Ch. 467; 28 L. T. 346; 21 W. R. 282. C. PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF. 1. REMOVAL AND ABATEMENT. When Justified.]—An individual cannot abate a nuisance if he is not otherwise injured by it than as one of the public. Colchester Corporation v. Brooke, 7 Q. B. 339; 15 L. J., Q. B. 59. A private individual cannot justify damaging the property of another on the ground that it is a nuisance to a public right, unless it does him a special or particular injury. Dimes v. Petley, 15 Q. B. 276; 19 L. J., Q. B. 449; 14 Jur. 1132. A county council is entitled to remove an obstruction upon a main road whether the soil is vested in the council or not. Such right is exercisable whether the obstruction has been created either before or after the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888. Harris v. Northamptonshire County Council, 61 J. P. 599. An entry on the land of another in order to remove a nuisance arising from filth by a party injured is justifiable, without previous notice, where the owner of the land is himself the original wrongdoer by placing it there; so possibly where the nuisance arises from a default in the performance of some obligation incumbent on him. Jones v. Williams, 11 M. & W. 176; 12 L. J., Ex. 249. If a man, on his own soil, does anything which is a nuisance to another, as by stopping å rivulet, and so diminishing the water used by him for his cattle, the party injured may enter on the soil of the other and abate the nuisance, in the way least injurious to the owner of the land entered, and justify the trespass; and this right of abatement is not confined merely to nuisances to a house, to a mill, or to land. Raikes v. Townsend, 2 Smith 9; 7 R. R. 776. Abatement by Occupier-Right to Indemnity from Owner.]-The plaintiff who was tenant from year to year to the defendants of a house in London, was served by the sanitary authority with a notice under s. 4, sub.-s. 1, of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requiring him to abate a nuisance on the premises occupied by him. The plaintiff did the necessary work, in the course of which it was discovered that the nuisance arose from a structural defect in the drains-Held, that he was entitled to recover from the defendants the costs and expenses incurred by him in abating the nuisance, although no notice under s. 4, sub-s. 3, of the act had been served on them as owners of the premises. Gebhardt v. Saunders, [1892] 2 Q. B. 452; 67 L. T. 684; 40 W. R. 571; 56 J. P. 741. Under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, a sanitary authority served on certain premises an intimation or warning, addressed to the owners, that if certain necessary works were not completed within a specified time they would commence proceedings against them "by the service of a statutory notice." The occupiers, without forwarding the document to the owners or informing them of it, executed the work and sought to recover the expenses from the owners: Held, that the occupiers, not being compellable to execute the work, had acted as mere volunteers in doing so, and had no claim to be reimbursed by the owners. Thompson & Norris Manufacturing Co. v. Hawes, 73 L. T. 369; 59 J. P. 580 -C. A. Works Required by Local Authority - Incidence of Cost as between Tenant for Life and Remainderman.]-The cost of the execution of sanitary works required by a local authority under the powers of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, falls, as between a tenant for life and remaindermen of the premises in respect of which the works are executed, upon the corpus of the property. Lever, In re, Cordwell v. Lever, 66 L. J., Ch. 66; [1897] 1 Ch. 32; 75 L. T. 383; 45 W. R. 172. Notice.]-Where a nuisance is created by Where there is an alternate way of abating a another, and the owner succeeds to the locus in nuisance which involves an interference with quo, he is entitled to notice before an injured the property of an innocent person or a wrong-party can enter and remove it. Jones v. Wildoer, the interference must be with the property liams, col. 225. Cf. Lemmon v. Webb, supra. of the wrong-doer. Ib. A person, in abating a nuisance to his property, No Action to Compel Person to Restrain.]— may justify an interference with the property of No action can be maintained to compel a person the wrong-doer, but only so far as is necessary to bring an action for the purpose of restraining to abate the nuisance. Roberts v. Rose, H. & a nuisance which he cannot himself prevent. C. 103; 35 L. J., Ex. 62; L. R. 1 Ex. 82; 12 Att.-Gen. v. Dorking Union, 51 L. J., Ch. 585; Jur. (N.S.) 78; 13 L. T. 471; 14 W. R. 225-20 Ch. D. 595; 46 L. T. 573; 30 W. R. 579— Ex. Ch. Where branches of a tree growing upon the land of one owner overhang that of another, the owner of the land encroached upon may, without notice to his neighbour, cut so much of the branches of the tree as overhang his land, provided he can do so without going on his neighbour's land. Per Lord Macnaghten: Whether the law would be the same in the VOL. X. C. A. 2. BEFORE JUSTICES. a. Jurisdiction. Previous Notice to Abate.]-Under 23 & 24 Vict. c. 77, s. 13, amended by 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, part 2, a justice of the peace, upon the complaint 8 of any inhabitant of any parish or place of the existence of any nuisance on any private premises of the same parish or place, may issue a summons requiring the person by whose act, default, permission, or sufferance the nuisance arises, &c., or if such person cannot be found or ascertained, the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises, to appear before justices, without proof of the service of a previous notice to abate the nuisance. Cocker v. Cardwell, 10 B. & S. 797; 39 L. J., M. C. 28; L. R. 5 Q. B. 15; 21 L. T. 457; 18 W. R. 212. When a nuisance has been ascertained by the local authority to exist on private premises, and a notice has been served under 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 21, it is not necessary, in order to found proceedings before justices for the abatement, under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 12, that a notice should have been served under s. 11 and Sched. Form (C.) of the latter act. Amys v. Creed, 38 L. J., M. C. 22; L. R. 4 Q. B. 122; 17 W. R. 118. In proceedings under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to abate a nuisance, the notice provided by s. 4 is only required to be given in respect of the nuisances mentioned in s. 2, and need not be given in cases of trade nuisances provided for by s. 21. Bird v. St. Mary Abbot's Vestry, 64 L. J., M. C. 215; [1895] 1 Q. B. 912 ; 15 R. 438; 72 L. T. 599; 59 J. P. 391. "Forthwith."]-A notice served on a person under s. 94 of the Public Health Act, 1875, requiring him to abate forthwith a nuisance arising from filth, sufficiently defines the time for doing the work, "forthwith" meaning within a reasonable time. Thomas v. Nokes, 58 J. P. 672. diction has no power to entertain a complaint based upon such an alleged nuisance. Fulham Vestry v. London County Council, 66 L. J., Q. B. 515; [1897] 2 Q. B. 76; 76 L. T. 691; 45 W. R. 620; 61 J. P. 440. Black Smoke-Manufacture of Bichrome.]— N. had a manufactory for bichrome, and heated his furnaces with coal, the smoke from which constituted a nuisance. The bichrome as an article of commerce could be produced of equal quality by the use of coke and wood as a combustible, but at a much greater expense. He had adopted a smoke-consuming apparatus, but it had proved insufficient to prevent the nuisance. The justices in petty sessions made an order on him under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, ss. 12 & 19 (repealed), to abate the nuisance:- Held, that the manufacture of bichrome as involving the smelting of ores or minerals was excepted from the operations of the Sanitary and Nuisances Removal Acts, 29 and 30 Vict. c. 90, and 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, by s. 44 of the latter statute, and that the order was therefore wrongly made. Norris v. Barnes, 41 L. J., M. C. 154; L. R. 7 Q. B. 537; 26 L. T. 622; 20 W. R. 703. "Liability " under Repealed Enactment.]-By 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 343, which came into force on the 11th of August, 1875, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, are repealed with a proviso that "this repeal shall not affect any right or liability acquired, accrued. or incurred under any enactment hereby repealed." An order under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, to discontinue the sending forth of black smoke from a certain chimney in such quantity as to be a nuisance Summons under Public Health (London) was made by justices and served on the owner on Act, 1891-How Served.]—A summons issued in the 24th of May, 1875. On the 12th of August, respect of a nuisance upon complaint of the 1875, black smoke was emitted from the sanitary inspector of a district under the Public chimney in such quantity as to be a nuisance. Health (London) Act, 1891, comes within the The owner having been summoned before justices words "any notice, order, or other document," for a disobedience of the order, they dismissed of s. 128 of that act; it may therefore be served in the summons upon the ground that the statutes any of the modes mentioned in that section, and under which the order was made had been may be addressed to the "owner" of the pre-repealed on the 11th of August: Held, that the mises without any further description. Reg. v. Mead, 63 L. J., M. C. 128 ; [1894] 2 Q. B. 124; 10 R. 217; 70 L. T. 766; 42 W. R. 442; 58 J. P. 448. Nuisance not Injurious to Health.]—A railway company was the owner of a railway bridge over a highway. The rain-water collected on the bridge, and running through the planks, dripped on to the highway, and on persons using the highway. The company was summoned, under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 12, for allowing a nuisance to exist on their premises, and the justices ordered its abatement:-Held, that the act, being a sanitary act, applied only to such nuisances as were injurious to health; and that as the nuisance complained of was not injurious to health, the justices were wrong in ordering its abatement. G. W. Ry. v. Bishop, 41 L. J., M. C. 120 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 550; 26 L. T. 905; 20 W. R. 969. Public Sewer vested in London County Council.]-The provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, for the abatement of nuisances do not apply to a nuisance alleged to arise from a public sewer vested in the London county council, and a court of summary juris - order was a "liability" within the proviso in 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 343, that it continued in force notwithstanding the repeal of the statutes under which it was made, and that the decision of the justices was erroneous. Barnes v. Eddleston, 45 L. J., M. C. 162; 1 Ex. D. 102; 33 L. T. 822. Justices acting Continuing Offences.] in pursuance of the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855 (repealed), and the Sanitary Act, 1866 (repealed), ordered the occupiers of premises to cease to send forth black smoke from their chimney, so that the same should be no longer a nuisance. The order having been persistently disregarded, and the offenders summoned, and a penalty imposed on them for their default, nineteen separate informations were eventually laid, and the same number of summonses simultaneously issued in respect of as many acts of disobedience, each committed on a different day, by sending forth black smoke. At the hearing of the summonses, the full penalty of 108. was imposed for the offence alleged in each, and the offenders were ordered also to pay 158. costs upon the first summons, and 16s. costs upon every other. They objected that their disobedience was but one default, and that the divers acts complained of should have been charged in a single summons, was the appellants' act which created the nuisance. to which one set of costs only would have Scarborough Corporation v. Scarborough Rural attached; and they obtained a rule calling on Sanitary Authority, 1 Ex. D. 344; 34 L. T. the justices to show cause why they should not 768. S. P., Letterkenny Commissioners v. Collins, state a case:-Held, that each daily emission of 28 L. R., Ir. 235. Reg. v. Trimble, 36 L. T. smoke was a separate act of disobedience, for 508. which a separate summons might be lawfully issued, and that, under the circumstances, the justices had not so exercised their discretion in awarding costs as to render the interference of the court necessary. Reg. v. Waterhouse, 41 L. J., M. C. 115; L. R. 7 Q. B. 545; 26 L. T. 761; 20 W. R. 712. Semble, that, had they done so, the proper remedy would not be by ruling them to state a case. Ib. Two Convictions for Offences on Same Day.]-On the 11th of March, 1871, an order of justices was made on E. and his partners, in the trade of a dyer, to cease to send forth black smoke from a certain chimney, under the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, s. 12, with liberty to the informant to enter on default, and do what was necessary to execute the order. On the 14th of March, 1874, a further order was made under the same section that they should discontinue the nuisance, and that its recurrence should be prohibited. On the 1st of May, 1875, E. was convicted under s. 13 for disobeying the order of abatement of the 11th March, 1871, and on the same day was also convicted of disobeying the order of prohibition of the 14th of March, 1874. Both convictions proceeded on the evidence that on one day black smoke issued from E.'s chimney :-Held, that both convictions could not be maintained. Barnes v. Eddleston, col, 228. Evidence of Offence.]-Upon an information against a party for a nuisance through a chimney sending forth black smoke, an order was made on the 20th July, 1868, that within two months he should make such alterations in the chimney, so as to consume the smoke arising therefrom. He thereupon made alterations, and the smoke ceased to issue until the 4th of the following February, when for a limited period on that day it again issued. In the following July an information was laid for disobedience to the order. No evidence was given as to the cause of the issuing of the smoke, and the justices convicted him :-Held, first, that there was evidence justifying the conviction, and, secondly, that as the nuisance was a continuing one, the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 11, did not apply. Higgins v. Northwich Union, 22 L. T. 752. 66 to Orders for Structural Works.]-Under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, justices ordered a party against whom complaint was made by the Nuisances Removal Committee, for causing a nuisance, abate and discontinue the nuisance and to do such works and acts as are necessary to abate the nuisance, so that the same shall no longer be a nuisance" and if the order was not complied with, the committee was authorised to enter upon the premises, and to do all such works, matters or things as might be necessary for carrying the order into execution :-Held, that this was not an order for the execution of structural works, so as to be subject to appeal, and that therefore a a penalty might be imposed for disobedience of the order, notwithstanding the entry of an appeal against such order, and that the orders could not be brought up by certiorari. Liverpool Corporation, Ev parte, 8 El. & Bl. 537; 27 L. J., M. C. 89; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 333. A nuisance existed consisting of a privy and ashpit in such a state as to be a nuisance, and the local sanitary authority gave notice to the owner under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 94, to abate the same, and for that purpose to fill up the ashpit, abandon the privy, and build a pail closet. The owner failed to do so, and justices thereupon, under s. 96, ordered the owner to fill up the ashpit, to abandon the privy, and to construct a proper and sufficient pail closet in lieu thereof. On a rule for a certiorari to quash the order of justices :-Held, that the order was bad, as the justices had no power under s. 96 to order the erection of the pail closet. Whitchurch, Ex parte, 50 L. J., M. C. 41; 6 Q. B. D. 545; 29 W. R. 507; 45 J. P. 392. An order under s. 96 of the Public Health Act, 1875, must specify what works and things the owner should execute and do for the purpose of abating the nuisance. Reg. v. Wheatley, 55 L. J., M. C. 11; 16 Q. B. D. 34; 54 L. T. 680; 34 W. R. 257; 50 J. P. 424. See also Reg. v. Kent Inhabitants, 55 L. J., M. C. 9 n. Section 96 of the Public Health Act, 1875, leaves it absolutely to the justices to order what works or structural alterations they, in their discretion, think necessary for the abatement of the nuisance. Whitaker v. Derby Urban Sanitary Authority, 55 L. J., M. C. 8; 50 J. P. 357. Upon the hearing of a summons under s. 37 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, against the owner of premises for failing to comply with a notice served upon him by the sanitary authority in respect of the water-closet accommodation upon the premises, the magistrate is bound by the decision of the sanitary authority that the accommodation is insufficient, and has no jurisdiction to inquire as to its sufficiency or otherwise. St. John's, Hackney, Vestry v. Hutton, 66 L. J., Q. B. 74 ; [1897] 1 Q. B. 210; 75 L. T. 686; 45 W. R. 92; 61 J. P. 54. Orders Involving Trespass.]-An urban sanitary authority deposited in a field ashes and refuse, in order that the same might be removed by certain farmers, with whom they had contracted for its purchase. The appellants were not the owners or tenants of the field, and they exercised no control over the ashes and refuse after the same were deposited: the deposit formed a nuisance. An order was made under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 96, by justices against the appellants, for the abatement of the A metropolitan district board of works cannot existing nuisance and for the prohibition of its under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, lay down any general recurrence:-Held, that so much of the order as or arbitrary rule requiring owners or occupiers of directed an abatement was bad, for it prescribed houses situate within its district to convert an act, the execution of which might involve the privies into water-closets. Tinkler v. Wandsworth committal of a trespass; but that so much of the Board of Works, 2 De G. & J. 261; 27 L. J., Ch. order as prohibited a recurrence was good, for it | 342; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 293; 6 W. R. 390. Nor can a local authority under s. 36 of the laid under the highway into an open ditch in a Public Health Act, 1875. Tinkler v. Wandsworth field belonging to B., where the sewage first Board of Works, supra, followed. Wood v. became a nuisance. On these facts the justices Widnes Corporation, 66 L. J., Q. B. 797; [1897] refused to make an order on A., under 18 & 19 2 Q. B. 357; 77 L. T. 306; 46 W. R. 30; 61 J. P. Vict. c. 121 (repealed), for the abatement of the nuisance and to prevent its recurrence :-Held, that they were right. Hendon Union v. Bowles, 17 L. T. 597; 16 W. R. 510. 646. The requirements of each particular house must be considered, and the only power the local authority has is to require a sufficient watercloset to be provided. Ib. A water-closet in the centre of a house being a nuisance, the sanitary authority gave notice to the owner of the house under s. 34 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to abate the nuisance, and for that purpose to remove the said closet from the centre of the house and place the same near an outer wall where there might be efficient ventilation, and to fix the soil-pipe outside the walls. The owner making default in so doing the justices thereupon, under s. 96, ordered him to do the things above specified :-Held, that they had jurisdiction under that section to make the order. Whitchurch, Ex parte, col. 230, distinguished. Saunders, Ex parte, 52 L. J., M. C. 89; 11 Q. B. D. 191; 31 W. R. 918; 47 J. P. 584. S. P., Reg. v. Llewellyn, 55 L. J., M. C. 9 n.; 13 Q. B. D. 681; 33 W. R. 150; 49 J. P. 101. Orders, upon whom made.]—An order may be made under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 12, upon a person who causes a nuisance, though it arises at a distance from his premises. Brown v. Bussell, 9 B. & S. 1; 37 L. J., M. C. 65; L. R. 3 Q. B. 251; 16 W. R. 511. When several persons drain their premises into one place, an order under s. 12 may be made upon one whose drainage by itself causes a nuisance. Ib. But if, though the aggregate drainage is a nuisance, the drainage of each is not by itself enough to cause a nuisance; quære, whether an order should be made under s. 12, or a sewer laid down under s. 22, and, per Blackburn, J., it is for the local authority to determine which. Ib. An order under s. 12 may be made upon a person who claims an easement to drain through land of A. into a watercourse on land of B. Ib. The owner of six houses, let to yearly tenants, made a drain from them by leave of the owner of adjoining land through his land into a watercourse on another person's land, where the drainage became a nuisance :-Held, that an order under s. 12 was rightly made on the owner. Ib. An owner who has made default in complying with a notice served upon him under s. 94 of the Public Health Act, 1875, may have an order made upon him under s. 96 requiring him to abate a nuisance, even though the premises on which it exists are in the occupation of a tenant under a lease for twenty-one years containing the usual covenants and the owner cannot enter on the premises and execute the works required without the tenant's permission. Parker v. Inge, 55 L. J., M. C. 149; 17 Q. B. D. 584; 55 L.T. 300; 51 J. P. 20. The lord of a manor within which is a common vested in conservators is not liable in respect of a nuisance committed on the common. Richmond Union v. St. Paul's (Dean), 18 L. T. 522. A. was the owner of property on which certain cesspools existed, which contained the sewage from several houses also his property. This sewage, together with the sewage from houses belonging to other persons, flowed over the cesspools in rainy weather and passed through pipes An order cannot be made under s. 96 of the Public Health Act, 1875, requiring the local board to abate a nuisance which arises from sewage tanks and works constructed under s. 27 of the same act. Reg. v. Parlby, 58 L. J., M. C. 49; 22 Q. B. D. 250; 60 L. T. 422; 37 W. R. 335; 53 J. P. 327. A. was the lessee for twenty-one years, at a rack rent, of a house and shop; he occupied the shop himself and underlet the upper part of the house to B. as a yearly tenant. The upper part was shut off from the shop, and A. had no access to it. There was a privy in the upper part of the house, which the nuisance authority took proceedings to abate, as a nuisance arising from a defective construction of a structural convenience; and they proceeded against C., who received the rent from A. as agent for A.'s landlord-Held, that C. was not owner within the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121 (repealed), s. 2, incorporated within the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90 (repealed), s. 21, as he did not receive the rent from B., who was the occupier of the premises. Cook v. Montag", 41 L. J., M. C. 149; L. R. 7 Q. B. 418; 26 L. T. 471; 20 W. R. 624. A person to whom an owner of premises resident abroad sends a power of attorney authorising him to receive the rents is not thereby constituted owner within 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 2, so as to render him personally liable for the costs and expenses of the abatement of a nuisance on the premises previously to the receipt of his authority. Blything Union v. Warton, 3 B. & S. 352; 32 L. J., M. C. 132; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 867; 7 L. T. 672; 11 W. R. 306. An order to abate a nuisance by removing offensive privies was directed to the " owner, or to the nuisance removal committee," the owner being directed to remove the same within seven days, and if such order was not complied with, the committee was authorised and required to enter and remove it. The seven days elapsed, and neither the owner nor the committee removed the nuisance :-Held, that the justices had power to fine the owner, under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 14, for disobedience of the order, notwithstanding that it was addressed as well to the nuisance committee as to the owner. Tomlins v. Great Stanmore, 12 L. T. 118. The owner of a market allowed sheep to be penned there, and he found the hurdles for the pens, and derived a profit in addition to the toll on the sheep. The sheep droppings created a nuisance on the part where they were penned Held, that the owner of the market was liable to an order for the removal of the nuisance, as being the person "by whose act, default, permission, or sufferance," the nuisance arose. Draper v. Sper ring, 10 C. B. (N.S.) 113; 30 L. J., M. C. 225; 4 L. T. 365; 9 W. R. 656. A ditch ran along a highway which divided two rural sanitary districts. The ditch was situated in N., but a nuisance was caused in greater part by sewage from W. The W. sanitary authority applied for an order on the N. authority to cleanse the ditch as being in their area :-Held, that the justices were right in ordering W. to cleanse the ditch. Woburn Union | drain through the lands :-Held, that the order v. Newport Pagnell Union, 51 J. P. 694. Occupiers. By an order of justices under the Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 94, 96, it was found that on land, the property of a certain person named, a nuisance existed, viz. a foul ditch, caused by refuse water and offensive liquid from an adjoining brewery, and that this nuisance was caused by the act or default of the defendant as owner and occupier of the brewery, and it was ordered that the defendant, within three months, should abate the nuisance, and for that purpose should execute such works and do all such things as might be necessary so that the same should no longer be a nuisance or injurious to health. Upon a rule for certiorari, on the ground that the defendant was not the occupier of the premises on which the nuisance was proved to exist, and that he had no power or authority from the owner to enter on the premises for any purpose whatever: -Held, that the order must be quashed. Reg. v. Trimble, 36 L. T. 508. Enforcing Orders.]-A penalty, under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 14, for disobedience of an order to abate a nuisance, cannot be enforced without a previous summons under s. 20 of the persons on whom it is imposed. Reg. v. Jenkins, 3 B. & S. 116; 32 L. J., M. C. 1; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 570; 7 L. T. 272; 11 W. R. 20. The 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 18, for removing orders of quarter sessions for the purpose of enforcing them by attachment, does not apply to an order to abate a nuisance, of which a defendant has been found guilty. Reg. v. Bateman, 8 El. & Bl. 584; 27 L. J., M. C. 95; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 301; 6 W. R. 63. Costs-Recovery of — Time for.]-The limitation of six calendar months imposed by s. 11, of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, in respect of summary proceedings before magistrates, applies to a county court action brought under s. 11 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to recover the amount of costs and expenses incurred in and about serving a notice, making a complaint, and obtaining and carrying into effect a nuisance order. Such an action must therefore be brought within six calendar months from the time when such costs and expenses were incurred. Hammersmith Vestry v. Lowenfeld, 65 L. J., Q. B. 662; [1896] 2 Q. B. 278; 75 L. T. 182; 45 W. R. 60; 60 J. P. 600. b. Appeals. Time for.-In computing the two days allowed by 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 40, to an appellant for entering into a recognisance after giving notice of appeal, Sunday is to be reckoned as one, though it falls on the last day. Simpkin, Ex parte, 2 El. & El. 392; 29 L. J., M. C. 23; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 144. Not from Order to Abate.]-The drainage of a gaol, which had been duly declared to be a borough gaol, was carried by open drains through lands not belonging to the corporation. Upon the complaint of the nuisances removal committee the justices made an order, under the 18 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 12, upon the corporation to abate the nuisance, and do such works as were necessary to abate the same. The nuisance could only be removed by the construction of a covered was an order to abate the nuisance, and not an order for structural works, within s. 16, and therefore there was no appeal to the quarter sessions against it. Liverpool Corporation, Ex parte, 8 El. & Bl. 537; 27 L. J., M. C. 89; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 333. Costs.] Parties having been convicted by justices for a nuisance, under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, they appealed to the quarter sessions, when the conviction was affirmed, subject to a case; the order of quarter sessions directing that "the costs of the appeal should abide the result of the decision of the Queen's Bench." The case and order of sessions having been duly removed, the court quashed the order of quarter sessions generally :-Held, that the order being quashed generally, the court of quarter sessions had no power afterwards to deal with the costs. Reg. v. Hampshire JJ., 32 L. J., M. C. 46; 8 Jur. (N.s.) 1212; 7 L. T. 391; 11 W. R. 122. 3. INDICTMENT. When it Lies.]-Where the legislature declares an act to be a public nuisance, the person doing the act is indictable. Reg. v. Crawshaw, Bell C. C. 303; 30 L. J., M. C. 58; 3 L. T. 510; 9 W. R. 38; 8 Cox C. C. 375. In making a tramway, the turnpike road was dug into, but filled up again and restored to its former state, except that the rail or tramroad remained, forming a groove of wood adapted to the wheels of carriages, and which groove was sunk in the road, and did not anywhere rise above its level :-Held, after a verdict of guilty, that the court could not (on a special case empowering them to draw inferences as a jury) pronounce the injury created by this work too slight and uncertain to be a subject of indictment. Reg. v. Charlesworth, 16 Q. B. 1012; 3 Cox C. C. 174. Obstructions in Harbours and Rivers.]-See ante, col. 219. Liability for Acts of Servants.]-The directors of a gas company are answerable on an indictment for a nuisance for an act done by their superintendent and engineer, under a general authority to manage the works, though they are personally ignorant of the particular plan adopted, and though such plan is a departure from the original and understood method, which the directors had no reason to suppose had been discontinued. Rex v. Medley, 6 Car. & P. 292. The owner of works carried on for his profit by his agents is liable to be indicted for a public nuisance caused by acts of his workmen in carrying on the works, though done by them without his knowledge and contrary to his general orders. Reg. v. Stephen, 7 B. & S. 710; L. R. 1 Q. B. 702; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 961; 14 L. T. 593; 14 W. R. 859; 10 Cox C. C. 340. If A. employs another to do a lawful act, and he in doing it commits a public nuisance, A. is not responsible. Peachey v. Rowland, 13 C. B. 182; 22 L. J., C. P. 81; 17 Jur. 764. S. P., Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Consumers' Co., 2 C. L. R. 249; 2 El. & Bl. 767; 23 L. J., Q. B. 42; 18 Jur. 146; 2 W. R. 19. |