(s. 126). Such dust, &c., declared the property of the Board (s. 127). Like penalty for removal by unauthorised persons (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 89). Refuse of trades may be removed by agreement (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 128), to be settled, in case of dispute, by two Justices (s. 129). The Boards shall appoint Inspectors of Nuisances (s. 133), and the Vestry or Board shall be the Local Authority to execute the Nuisances Acts (s. 134). Penalty for sweeping rubbish, &c., into sewers or the Thames, not exceeding 57. (s. 205). Works by the Metropolitan Board for deodorising sewage, not to create a nuisance (21 & 22 Vict. c. 104, s. 24). In case of nuisance in the execution of any works the Secretary of State may order a prosecution (s. 31). Penalty for keeping swine in improper places, or so as to be a nuisance, not exceeding 40s., and 10s. a day during continuance (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 91). The Vestry or Board may contract for the removal of manure, &c. (a) (s. 95).

reversed: Erle, C. J., Byles and Keating, JJ., Bramwell and Channell, BB. (Pollock, C. B., and Pigott, B. dissenting), being of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain an action (5 New Reports, 249).

(a) With regard to the removal of nuisances in the Metropolis, stringent powers were provided under the 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix. (local) ss. 66 et seq., but this Act is practically superseded by the Metropolis Management Act, under which bye-laws for these purposes may be made, and which repeals all acts so far as they are inconsistent with it. By s. 68 of the Act above referred to, the keeping of swine within forty yards of any street within the Bills of Mortality was forbidden, and any swine at large in the streets might be seized and sold. This provision with regard to the keeping of swine is not, however, extended, by the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 73, beyond the old Bills of Mortality. Cockburn, C. J., "The keeping of pigs near a street is still prohibited within the Bills of Mortality, but between that area and the limits of the Metropolis Management Acts they may be kept, unless they cause annoyance" (Chelsea Vestry v. King, 5 New Reports, 85).

Under the City Sewers Act (see note, p. 37) the Commissioners, on certificate of the Officer of Health or two medical practitioners, or on complaint of the persons annoyed, may summon the owner, lessee or occupier of any premises in a filthy or unwholesome condition, and cause the same to be purified at his expense (ss. 77 to 79, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. xci. s. 5). Power to whitewash and purify houses (s. 81); appointment and regulation of scavengers (ss. 82 to 86, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. xci. ss. 6 to 8); penalty for allowing stagnant or filthy water in cellars, &c. (s. 87), also for causing offensive smells, removing nightsoil during the day, &c. (ss. 113 to 114).

OFFENSIVE TRADES.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS.

In Districts where the Public Health and Local Government Acts have been applied, the Local Board of Health may provide Slaughter Houses (a), and shall make Bye-Laws with respect to the management and charges for the use of the premises so provided (b), saving established rights (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 62; 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 50). The powers of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act with respect to Slaughter Houses are incorporated (ib. s. 44);-under which Act the Board may license Slaughter Houses and Knackers' Yards (10 & 11 Vict. c. 34, s. 125). No place not used as a Slaughter House, &c. prior to the 2nd of August, 1858, shall be so used without such license under penalty not exceeding 57., and like penalty for every day during continuance of offence (s. 126). Slaughter Houses to be registered under like penalty for neglect, and 10s.

(a) The 26 Geo. 3, c. 71, enacts that no person shall keep a slaughterhouse for horses or cattle not used for butchers' meat without a license from the Quarter Sessions (s. 1), and over the door of any such slaughter-house the name of such person and the fact of his having obtained such license shall be affixed (s. 2) under penalty not exceeding 5., and 57. a day during continuance of neglect (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, s. 7), recoverable as therein set forth; offender may be imprisoned in default (ss. 14 to 18). Notice must be given before slaughtering any such animal to the Inspector (26 Geo. 3, c. 71 s. 3) who shall be appointed by the Vestry (s. 5). Persons slaughtering any such animal without license and giving such notice, &c., is guilty of felony (s. 8). No license to carry on an offensive trade will enable such business to be carried on after it becomes a public nuisance to the neighbourhoodbut if such be already established in a place remote from habitations and public roads, and persons afterwards build houses within reach of its noxious effects, or if a public road be made so near to it that the carrying on of the trade becomes a nuisance to the persons using the road; in those cases the trade may be continued because it was legal prior to the building of the houses, or the making of the road (R. v. Cross, 2 C. & P. 483).

(b) See suggested forms for Bye-Laws, p. 617.

a day during default (s. 127). The Justices may in addition to any penalty suspend the license for two months in the case of any person offending against any Bye-Laws, &c., and on any subsequent offence may revoke such license (s. 129). Penalty for Slaughtering Cattle, &c. during such suspension or revocation 57, and 57. a-day (s. 130). The Officer of Health, Inspector of Nuisances, &c. may inspect any Slaughter House, Butcher's Shop, &c. (s. 131). [See "Diseased Meat."] The business of blood, bone, soap, or tripe-boiler, fell-monger, tallow-melter, slaughterer of cattle, horses, &c., or other offensive trade, is not to be established in any such District. without the Board's consent, under penalty of 50%., and 40s. a day during continuance of offence; and the Board may make Bye-Laws with respect to such newly-established trades (a) (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 64). The Act not to render lawful anything that would otherwise be deemed a nuisance (s. 65).

NUISANCES REMOVAL ACTS.

The Local Authority under these Acts [sce "Constitution of Local Authorities "] shall lay a complaint in case any candle, melting, soap, or slaughter house, or place for boiling offal, blood, bones, or any other trade causing effluvia, within any city, town, or populous district, be certified to be a nuisance, or injurious to health, by any Medical Officer, or two Medical Practitioners [see "Officer of Health"]. Any person offending by not using the best means for counteracting such effluvia is, on summary conviction before two Justices, to forfeit not more than 57., nor less than 40s. for the first offence; 10%. for the second, and double the last penalty for every subsequent

(a) Brickmaking is not an offensive trade within s. 64 of the Public Health Act. Erle, C.J.: "The statute has prohibited certain businesses connected with animal matter, and brickmaking is not a business analogous to those mentioned previous, or any other noxious or offensive business, trade, or manufacture.' It may be carried on so as to be no annoyance, and is a proper use of land having clay, and therefore it is not within the statute." (Wanstead L. B. v. Hill, 1 New Reports, 282.)

offence, not exceeding 2007., subject to appeal (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 27): Provided that the party complained against may give security to abide the issue of proceedings in a superior court (a) (s. 28).

(a) In the case of Hole v. Barlow (4 C. B. N. S. 334; 27 L. J. C. P. 207; 4 Jur. N. S. 1019) it was held, that although at Common Law the existence of a nuisance, e.g., brickburning, may render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable, yet if the trade under the circumstances be carried on reasonably, in a proper and convenient place, no action will lie; and whether it be a convenient place, &c., is a question for a jury.

This decision, however, was over-ruled in Bamford v. Turnley (Exch. Ch. 31 L. J. Q. B. 286), where it was held by Erle, C.J., Williams, J., Bramwell, B., Keating, J., and Wilde, J.-Pollock, C. B., dissentingthat the fitness of the locality will not prevent an offensive trade from becoming actionable, but when the annoyance is sufficient to amount to a nuisance, considering all the circumstances, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff's enjoyment before the acts complained of, an action may be maintained whatever the locality may be; so that brickburning on a man's own land may cause such an annoyance to a neighbour as to be a cause of action, to which convenience and reasonable use will be no answer. It was observed by Bramwell, J.: ... "Those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses, may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action. This would not comprehend the present case, where what has been done was not the using of land in a common and ordinary way, but in an exceptional manner; not unnatural nor unusual, but not the common and ordinary use of land. It had occurred to me that any not unnatural use of the land, if of a temporary character, might be justified; but I cannot see why its being of a temporary nature should warrant it. What is temporary? One, five, or twenty years? If twenty, it would be difficult to say that a brick kiln in the direction of the prevalent wind, for twenty years, would not be as objectionable as a permanent one in the opposite direction. If temporary, in order to build a house on the land, why not temporary to exhaust the brick earth? I cannot think, then, that the nuisance being temporary makes a difference. If we look to analogous cases, I can find nothing to countenance the defendant's contention. A riparian owner cannot take water for the public benefit; he cannot foul it for the public benefit, if to the prejudice of another owner. common cannot be enclosed on such principle. A window, the fee simple value of which is 5s., cannot be stopped up by a building worth 1,000,000l. of the greatest public benefit. The windows of such a house might be blocked from light and air, however contrary that might be to public benefit . . . I have a difficulty in putting a meaning on the words 'convenient, reasonable, and proper,' as there used [in Hole v. Barlow]. As regards the sufferer? No. As regards the defendant? That cannot be, as that might place the nuisance close to the plaintiff, to the entire loss of the power of dwelling in his house. As between the two? Then the nuisance may lawfully be greater, as the

...

...

A

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS.

In the Metropolis no slaughter-house or cow-house can be used without a license, under penalty not exceeding 57., and no license applied for without fourteen days' notice to the Vestry or District Board of Works (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 93). Before applying for license for a slaughter-house for horses, &c., a month's notice must be given (a) (s. 94).

SMOKE NUISANCE ACTS.

Any person who shall carry on any business, in the Metropolis, which occasions any noxious or offensive effluvia, or otherwise annoy the neighbourhood or inhabitants, without using the best means for preventing such annoyance, is liable to penalties (16 & 17 Vict. c. 128, s. 1) on information by authority of the Secretary of State (s. 5), who shall not proceed against such nuisances unless the Local Authority fail to proceed actively in suppressing the same under the Nui

defendant's premises are smaller, and so his kiln must be nearer. As regards the public good? That I have already dealt with. In the result Hole v. Barlow should be over-ruled."

Where brick burning destroyed the comfort of a mansion and injured the trees, the Court granted an injunction, it appearing that such burning might have been carried on by the defendant on land in his occupation without that degree of injury which would entitle the plaintiff to complain (Beardmore v. Tredwell, 31 L. J. Ch. 892). The onus of proving that a lawful trade, causing a nuisance, is carried on in a reasonable and proper manner is on the defendant setting up the plea (Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, 31 L. J. Ex. 9). Offensive trades were, by a Local Act, prohibited within a certain distance of a Work house, but if carried on prior to the statute compensation was to be made :-Held that, notwithstanding, where a trade was so conducted as to be a nuisance at Common Law, the defendant was not entitled to any compensation, as the parish might at any time have caused it to be removed (R. v. Watts, 2 C. & P. 486). See also Walter v. Selfe, 2 L. J. Ch. 433, 4 De Gex & Sm. 315-Brickburning; Aldred's case, 7 Rep. 57 b.—Pigstye ; King v. Pierce, 2 Shower, 327-Soap-boiling.

(a) By the City Sewers Act, ss. 92 to 97 (see note, p. 37), and 14 & 15 Vict. c. xci. ss. 18 to 26, Slaughter-houses within the City of London are to be registered, and the Commissioners may make regulations in relation to the management of them; also with respect to offensive trades (ss. 108-9). Penalty for exposing offensive hides (14 & 15 Vict. c. xci. s. 49).