trades, for the suppression of which special provision has been Nuisances made, and though in regard to which no action can be taken arising from alkali works. by the local authority under the Nuisances Removal or Public 26 & 27 Vict. Health Acts, it is proper to notice in this work-namely, nui- c. 124, s. 7. sances arising from the non-condensation of muriatic acid gas evolved in alkali works. The serious injuries occasioned to health and property in the neighbourhood of those works are shown in the report of the Committee of the House of Lords appointed on the motion of the late Lord Derby; in consequence of that report an Act was passed for the more effectual condensation of such gas in alkali works-namely, the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 124, which was in the first instance continued until the 1st July, 1868, only, but which by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 36, s. 1, has been continued without limitation as to time. The 26 & 27 Vict. c. 124, provides for the appointment of an inspector of such works by the Board of Trade, and enacts that every alkali Ib. s. 4. work shall be carried on in such manner as to secure the condensation, to the satisfaction of the inspector derived from his own examination or from that of a sub-inspector, of not less than ninety-five per centum of the muriatic acid evolved therein, subject to certain penalties for carrying on any work in contravention of the Act. All such works must be registered with Ib. s. 6. the inspector; and the term "alkali work" shall mean every Ib. s. 3. work for the manufacture of alkali, sulphate of soda, or sulphate of potash, in which muriatic acid gas is evolved. § 6. AUTHORITY TO INSPECT PREMISES, AND ORDER WORKS TO BE DONE. as to inspec It shall be the duty of the nuisance authority to make from Duties of time to time, either by itself or its officers, inspection of the nuisance district, with a view to ascertain what nuisances exist calling authorities for abatement under the powers of the Nuisances Removal tion of Acts, and to enforce the provisions of the Acts in order to nuisances. cause the abatement thereof, also to enforce the provisions of 29 & 30 Vict. any Act that may be in force within its district requiring fire- c. 90, s. 20. places and furnaces to consume their own smoke; and any Order of justice upon complaint upon oath may make an order to admit justices to the nuisance authority or their officers for these purposes, as admit well as to ground proceedings under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, S. 11, th infra. nuisance Ib. nuisances. Before the local authority can take any proceedings under Notice of the Act of 1855, notice of the nuisance complained of must be existence of given to them in the form (B) in the schedule to the Act by― 18 & 19 Vict. Any person aggrieved thereby ; Or by any of the following persons The sanitary inspector or any paid officer under the local authority, Two or more inhabitant householders of the parish or place to which the notice relates, C. 121, S. 10. The relieving officer of the union or parish, Any constable or any officer of the constabulary or police force of the district or place, And in case the premises be a common lodging-house, any person appointed for the inspection of common lodginghouses (see, however, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 41, s. 9, ante, p. 271). And the local authority may take cognizance of any such nuisance after entry made, as provided by the Act, or in conformity with any Improvement Act under which the inspector has been appointed. Instead of giving notice to the local authority as above mentioned, any inhabitant of any parish or place may make complaint before a justice of the peace of the existence of any nuisance upon any private premises in the same parish or place, who is thereupon to issue a summons requiring the person by whose act, default, permission, or sufferance the nuisance arises, or if such person cannot be found or ascertained, the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises, to appear before two justices in petty sessions assembled at their usual place of meeting, who shall proceed to inquire into the complaint and act in relation thereto, as in cases where complaint is made by a local authority under section 12 of the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, and as if the person making the complaint were such local authority. The Court of Queen's Bench have held that a notice is not necessary under 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 21, post, p. 515, before laying a complaint by an inhabitant under 23 & 24 Vict. c. 77, s. 13. (1) The local authority, by themselves or their officers, have power of entry upon the premises. 1. To ground proceedings. For this purpose, when they or any of their officers have reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance exists, demand may be made by them or their officer (either personally or in writing), on any person having custody of the premises, of admission to inspect the same, between nine o'clock in the morning and six in the evening. If admission be not granted, an order of a justice may be obtained, after reasonable notice and without the person complained of having been previously summoned, to admit the local authority or their officer. If no person having custody of the premises can be discovered, the justice may and shall, on oath made before him of belief in the existence of the nuisance and of the fact that no person having the custody of the premises can be discovered, by order authorize the local authority or their officers to enter upon the premises between the hours above stated. Notice of the intended application to a justice must be served (1) Cocker app., Cardwell, resp., L. R. 5 Q. B. 15; 21 L. T. (N. S.) 457; 33 J. P. 758; 39 L. J. M. C. 38; 10 B. & S. 797. at least twenty-four hours before the time at which it is pro- Service of posed to make the entry on the premises; and it may be served notice of by delivering it to or at the residence of the person to whom it entry. 18 & 19 Vict. is addressed. Where the notice is addressed to the owner or c. 121, Sch. occupier of the premises, it may also be served by delivering it, Form C. or a true copy of it, to some person upon the premises; or if 18 & 19 Vict. there be no person upon the premises who can be so served, by c. 121, s. 31. affixing it upon some conspicuous part of the premises. If the person resides at a distance of more than five miles from the office of the inspector it may be served by a registered letter sent through the post. Distance in this case will be measured, not by the nearest practicable road, but by a straight line from point to point on the horizontal plane as the crow flies," as in Lake v. Butler, (1) Stokes v. Grissell, (2) which related to County Courts; and Reg. v. Saffron Walden, (3) which was a decision under the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, to the effect that the words "within ten miles thereof," in sect. 68 of that Act, mean within ten miles measured in a straight line from the house which the person inhabits to the boundary of the parish in which the estate conferring a settlement is situate. It must be observed, however, that sect. 9 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, regarding the appointment of a sanitary inspector, has been repealed, and that though in that section provision was made for the office of the sanitary inspector, no such provision is contained in the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 77, s. 9, which authorizes the appointment of an inspector of nuisances. 2. To examine premises where nuisances exist, to ascertain Entry upon the course of drains, and to execute or inspect works premises to examine and ordered by justices to be done under the Act. execute works. For these purposes whenever, under the provisions of the Act, a nuisance has been ascertained to exist, or when an order Ib, s. 11. of abatement or prohibition under the Act has been made, or when it becomes necessary to ascertain the course of a drain, the local authority may enter on the premises, by themselves or their officers, between the hours above mentioned, until the nuisance shall have been abated, or the course of the drain shall have been ascertained, or the works ordered to be done shall have been completed, as the case may be. examine meat. Ib. 3. To remove or abate a nuisance in case of non-compliance To remove with, or infringement of, the order of justices, or to nuisances, or inspect or examine any carcase, meat, poultry, game, flesh, fish, fruit, vegetables, corn, bread, or flour, under the powers and for the purposes of the Act; that is to say, "exposed for sale, or in the course of, or on their way to slaughtering, dressing, or preparation for sale or use, or landed from any ship or vessel in any port in England." (1) 24 L. J. Q. B. 273. (2) 23 L. J. C. P. 141. To examine meat, etc. 18 & 19 Vict. C. 121, S. II. Power of entry to nuisance authority or their officer. 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 31. Inspection of premises. Execution of works. For this purpose the local authority or their officer may from time to time enter the premises where the nuisance exists, or the carcase, meat, etc., is found, at all reasonable hours, or at all hours during which business is carried on on such premises, without notice. Further with regard to the inspection of animals, meat, etc., see the provisions of the statute 26 & 27 Vict. c. 117, post, P. 547. Where the chief officer of police becomes the local authority (see ante, p. 497) he is restricted by the 16th section of the Sanitary Act, 1866, from entering any dwelling-house without the occupier's consent or without the warrant of a justice of the peace. The power of entry given to the authorities by 18 & 19 Vict. C. 121, S. II, may be exercised at any hour when the business in respect of which the nuisance arises is in progress or is usually carried on. And any justice's order once issued under the section shall continue in force until the nuisance has been abated, or the work for which the entry was necessary has been done. Having obtained admission to the premises, the inspection of the alleged nuisance should be so conducted as to enable the local authority to determine whether it exists, or whether it existed at the time the notice was given, and whether, although it has since been removed or discontinued, it is likely to recur or to be repeated; and in all cases it will be the most expedient course to reduce to writing the result of the inspection. When the inspection is made by an officer of the local authority, it will also be expedient for that authority, on receiving the report of their officer, formally, and in writing, to record the conclusions to which they have come after considering his report, in order to ground further proceedings. It should be borne in mind that the Act gives no power to the local authority to enter upon any premises to execute works, such as are contemplated by sect. 11, except in the event of disobedience of an order of justices; and that, if they make such an entry, they may be restrained by a Court of Equity; for if a tribunal having a limited jurisdiction goes beyond that jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to resort to the appeal clause of the Act, as the Court of Chancery interferes for the purpose of restraining the exercise of powers beyond the jurisdiction of the bodies exercising them; per Lord Justice Turner, in Tinkler v. Wandsworth. (1) And further, with reference to the excess of jurisdiction which had been exercised by the local authority in that case, he said, it may be as well to caution the defendants, intrusted as they are by the Act (ie., the Metropolis Local Management Act, the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120) with very extensive powers, that it is their bounden duty to look well that they (1) 22 J. P. 224. keep strictly within their powers, and not to be guided by any Execution of fancied opinions of their own as to the "spirit" of the Act by works. which they are governed: this caution, it seems scarcely necessary to add, is equally applicable to local authorities acting under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 77. The case of Tinkler v. Wandsworth first came before ViceChancellor Stuart on a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendants, the Board of Works for the Wandsworth district, from pulling down or converting the privies attached to thirtynine cottages belonging to the plaintiff, situate at Ford's Buildings, in the parish of Battersea, into water-closets. On the 27th January, 1857, the defendants caused a notice to be served on the plaintiff's agent, requiring the plaintiff to commence, within fourteen days from the date thereof, the conversion of the privies in question into water-closets. The plaintiff in consequence informed the defendants that the occupiers of the cottages were satisfied with the accommodation which was attached to their dwellings, and that the proposed water-closets would be found inconvenient, and be perpetually getting out of order. The defendants replied, that it was their intention to do away with all privies in their district where there was available drainage for water-closets. A sewer having been in the meantime constructed by the defendants for carrying off the sewage matter from the water-closets proposed by them to be constructed on the plaintiff's premises, they on the 8th June, 1857, served the plaintiff's agent with a notice, entitled, “ In the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, and in the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121," to the effect that as the plaintiff had not constructed the works required by them to be constructed by their former notice, the workmen of their contractor would forthwith execute such works on or after the expiration of seven days from the service of the notice of the 8th of June, and that the defendants would adopt the course provided by the law for enforcing the payment of the expenses thereby incurred. Afterwards, on the 7th November, the defendants' workmen entered on the plaintiff's premises and commenced the works. Vice-Chancellor Stuart, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said, that the legislature, by the 12th section of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, has provided the proper tribunal for trying questions of this kind. Before justices of the peace such questions may, according to the provisions of the Act, be speedily and cheaply tried and decided. After hearing all that was urged by the counsel for the defendants, there appears, he said, nothing to satisfy the mind of any reasonable man that the Local Board are justified in refusing to proceed so as to have the question between them and the plaintiff tried before the justices of the peace according to the Act of Parliament. Assuming that there was such a nuisance as required the intervention of the Board, it is not satisfactorily shown that they |