A.D. 1875. Local Government Board made to treat them as common lodging-houses, and to enforce the provisions of the Act with respect to them against the tenants who thus admit lodgers. At the same time we feel bound to say we entertain considerable doubts as to the result." In Ireland it has been held that the landlord of a house, all the rooms of which are let out in tenements by the week at rents less than 3s. per week, although he does not reside upon the premises, is the keeper of a common lodging-house within the meaning of the Dublin Improvement Act, 1864, s. 24. Halligan v. Gauly, 19 L. T. (N. s.) 268. Byelaws as to Houses let in Lodgings. 90. The Local Government Board may, if they think fit, by notice published in the London Gazette, declare the may empower local authority following enactment to be in force within the district or to make bye- any part of the district of any local authority, and from and after the publication of such notice such authority shall be empowered to make byelaws for the following P.H. 1874, s. matters; (that is to say,) laws as to lodging-houses. San., s. 35. 47. (1.) For fixing and from time to time varying the number of persons who may occupy a house or part of a house, which is let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family, and for the separation of the sexes in a house so let or occupied : (2.) For the registration of houses so let or occupied : (3.) For the inspection of such houses: (4.) For enforcing drainage and the provision of privy accommodation for such houses, and for promoting cleanliness and ventilation in such houses: (5.) For the cleansing and lime-washing at stated times of the premises, and for the paving of the courts and courtyards thereof: (6.) For the giving of notices and the taking of precautions in case of any infectious disease. This section shall not apply to common lodging-houses within the provisions of this Act relating to common lodging-houses. The following opinion was given by the law officers of the Crown (then Sir H. M. Cairns and Sir W. Bovill) as to regulations under sect. 35 of the Sanitary Act, 1866, with respect to lodging-houses: "We are of opinion that any regulations for fixing the number of occupiers of houses, or parts of houses, let to different persons under the recent Act (the Sanitary Act, 1866) must receive the sanction of the Secretary of State, and will not be valid unless confirmed by him. We think it is not competent for the Local Board by a general regulation to acquire or to reserve to themselves the power of subsequently fixing the number of such occupiers; and although the present regulation might be confirmed by the Secretary of State, we are of opinion that it would not, upon the numbers of the occupiers being afterwards fixed by the Board, entitle them to enforce the regulations by penalties." NUISANCES. 91. For the purposes of this Act,— A.D. 1875. Definition of nuisances. 1. Any premises in such a state as to be a nuisance N.R. 1855, s. 8. or injurious to health: pool 2. Any pool ditch gutter watercourse privy urinal cessdrain or ashpit so foul, or in such a state, as to be a nuisance or injurious to health: 3. Any animal so kept as to be a nuisance or injurious to health: 4. Any accumulation or deposit which is a nuisance or injurious to health : 5. Any house or part of a house so overcrowded as to be dangerous or injurious to the health of the inmates, whether or not members of the same family: 6. Any factory, workshop, or workplace (not already under the operation of any general Act for the regulation of factories or bakehouses), not kept in a cleanly state, or not ventilated in such a manner as to render harmless as far as practicable any gases vapours dust or other impurities generated in the course of the work carried on therein that are a nuisance or injurious to health, or so overcrowded while work is carried on as to be dangerous or injurious to the health of those employed therein : 7. Any fireplace or furnace which does not as far as practicable consume the smoke arising from the combustible used therein, and which is used for working engines by steam, or in any mill factory dyehouse brewery bakehouse or gaswork, or in any manufacturing or trade process whatsoever; and Any chimney (not being the chimney of a private dwelling-house) sending forth black smoke in such quantity as to be a nuisance, shall be deemed to be nuisances liable to be dealt with summarily, in manner provided by this Act: ProvidedFirst. That a penalty shall not be imposed on any person in respect of any accumulation or deposit necessary for the effectual carrying on any business or manufacture if it be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the accumulation or deposit has not been kept longer than is necessary for the purposes of the business or manufacture, and that the best available means have been taken for preventing injury thereby to the public health : San. 1866, s. 19. A.D. 1875, Secondly. That where a person is summoned before any court in respect of a nuisance arising from a fireplace or furnace which does not consume the smoke arising from the combustible used in such fireplace or furnace, the court shall hold that no nuisance is created within the meaning of this Act, and dismiss the complaint if it is satisfied that such fireplace or furnace is constructed in such manner as to consume as far as practicable, having regard to the nature of the manufacture or trade, all smoke arising therefrom, and that such fireplace or furnace has been carefully attended to by the person having the charge thereof. It was held that the word "nuisance" in 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 8, which gave definitions similar to those in sub-sects. 1-4 of the above section, must be read in the sense of nuisances injurious to health; and the percolation of water through a railway bridge on to a public highway was not within the Act. Great Western Railway Company v. Bishop, 41 L. J. M. C. 120; L. R. 7 Q. B. 550; 26 L. T. (N. s.) 905. But on the other hand it was not necessary on an information under 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, sect. 19, 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. (N. s.) 516; 38 J. P. 805. And it was held, by Blackburn, J., and Mellor, J. (Lush, J., dissenting), that the nuisances enumerated in section 19 of the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, which gave definitions similar to those in sub-sects. 5-7, above, must be regarded as if they had been included in the nuisances specified in section 8 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, and that a nuisance caused by smoke from furnaces used in the manufacture of bichrome, a product of ore and minerals, was excepted by the proviso in section 44, which was similar to s. 332, post, from the summary provisions of the Acts. Blackburn, J., in delivering judgment, said that as, instead of re-enacting the Act of 1855, the Legislature had directed that the two statutes were to be read together, he thought that the 19th section of the last Act, containing the list of mischiefs defined to be a "nuisance," should be read as a continuation of the 8th section of the former Act; and then came the 44th section of the former Act, which excepts all factories used for working up metals. He quite agreed that this was an absurdity; nevertheless the Legislature had done it, and though he did not think they had intended to say what they did, he did not see that it was possible to put any other construction on the Acts. Norris v. Barnes, L. R. 7 Q. B. 537; 41 L. J. M. C. 154. The last words of sub-sect. 5 were inserted to remove a doubt as to whether under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 8 and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 19, the overcrowding of a house occupied by only one family could be abated, not withstanding the provision in s. 29 of the former Act, see ante, pp. lv, lxxvii. The Court of Queen's Bench had, however, held that it could be abated. Rye (Guardians) v. Paine, 32 L. T. (N. s.) 757; 44. L. J. M. C. 148. The proceeding shall be against the owner or occupier and not against the person who lights the fire. Barnes v. Akroyd, Times, 29th April, 1872; 41 L. J. M. C. 110; L. R. 7 Q. B. 474. An order of abatement of a nuisance within 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 19, sub-sect. 3, was made by justices, which was not complied with, and subsequently nineteen summonses were issued for disobedience of the said order, laying the disobedience to have occurred on nineteen distinct days, and such summonses were returnable, and heard on the same day, when the judges convicted on each of the summonses, and imposed a penalty of ten shillings upon each summons with a separate set of costs in respect of each summons and conviction; and it was held that the sending forth black smoke from the chimney was the nuisance, and that each summons was issued in respect of a distinct offence, and that the convictions were right. Reg v. Waterhouse, 41 L. J. M. C. 115; 26 L. T. (N. s.) 761 ; L. R. 7 Q. B. 545. The justices are the best judges whether or not an efficient alteration has taken place in respect of furnaces emitting smoke, and if they come to the conclusion that it has not, the Court will not interfere; per Mellor, J., the limitation of six months in 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 11, does not apply to such a case as a continuing nuisance. Higgin, app., Northwich, resp., 31 J. P. 452, 806; 22 L. T. (N. 8.) 752. The case of Reg. v. Brayshaw, Times, 8th May, 1873, was that of a rule calling on certain justices of Bradford to state a case. A Mr. Ripley was convicted in August of allowing black smoke to issue from his factory chimney. In October he was again convicted for allowing black smoke to issue from the same chimney; but it appeared that there were two furnaces which communicated with the same chimney, and that the smoke on the second occasion did not issue from the same furnace as on the first. It was contended for the appellant that this was only one offence, and that he could not be twice convicted for it. The Court, however, thought the chimney did not mean merely the orifice, but that it extended from the fire to the exit, and that therefore two offences had been committed. The rule was discharged. Of nuisances, Mr. Justice Blackstone says, "Nuisance, nocumentum, or annoyance, signifies anything which worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage. And nuisances are of two kinds: public or common, nuisances which affect the public, and are an annoyance to all the king's subjectsfor which reason we must refer them to the class of public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors; and private nuisances, which are the objects of our present consideration, and may be defined, anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another," 3 Com. 216. Elsewhere he says, "Common nuisances are a species of offences against the public order and economical regimen of the State; being either the doing a thing to the annoyance of all the king's subjects, or the neglecting to do a thing which the common good requires," 4 Com. 166. And again he says, "Common nuisances are such inconvenient or troublesome offences as annoy the whole community in general, and not merely some particular person, and therefore not indictable only, and not actionable," 4 Com. 167. Again, "Common nuisances are all those kinds of nuisances (such as offensive trades and manufactures) which, when injurious to a private man are actionable, are, when detrimental to the public, punishable by public prosecution and subject to fine according to the quantity of the misdemeanor; and particularly the keeping of hogs in any city or market-town is indictable as a public nuisance," 4 Com. 167, and Reg. v. Wigg, Salk. 460. And again, per Lord Mansfield, C. J., "to constitute a nuisance it is enough that the matter complained of renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable." Rex v. White, 1 Burr. 337. It is with public or common nuisances that the present statute deals, for private nuisances have their own peculiar remedy. The particular thing complained of must be a nuisance or injurious to health; so that injury to health need not necessarily be conjoined with the nuisance; but inasmuch as it is scarcely possible to define what is a nuisance under the Act apart from its being injurious to health, it will be the safest course for the justices not to act unless it be proved to them that the particular thing complained of is a nuisance injurious to health, or that it is likely in a substantial degree to injure the health of persons passing by or living near to the premises on which it exists. In another instance, where an information to restrain a nuisance was filed nine months before the hearing, and up to the hearing in March no steps had been taken to abate the nuisance, a perpetual injunction was granted; but under the circumstances the Court refused to suspend it beyond the second seal in Michaelmas following, with liberty to apply for an extension of the time if it were shown that due diligence had been used to abate the nuisance. Attorney-General v. Birmingham, 24 L. T.(N. s.) 224. The following may be noted:-The sewage from a lunatic asylum was alleged to foul a brook so as to be a public nuisance, and an information was A.D. 1875. A.D. 1875. filed to restrain the outpouring of such sewage so as to cause a nuisance. After standing over ineffectually for an arrangement for two years, the case was argued, when the Court directed a reference to an expert (who was agreed upon), under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, s. 42, as to whether, with reference to the health of the inhabitants, it was necessary that steps should be taken for purifying the brook, or whether the drainage should be diverted from the brook, and by what means. Attorney-General v. Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum, 19 L. T. (N. s.) 44; but see same case, ante, p. 21. Nuisances on village greens. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 31.-For the following peculiar class of public nuisances special provision has been made by the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 31:-wilfully causing any injury or damage to any fence of any town or village green or land, or wilfully and without lawful authority leading or driving any cattle or animal thereon, or wilfully laying any manure, soil, ashes, or rubbish or other matter or thing, thereon, or doing any other act whatsoever to the injury of such town or village green or land, or to the interruption of the use or enjoyment thereof as a place of exercise and recreation. Persons offending in any of these respects, upon a summary conviction thereof before two justices, upon the informa tion of any churchwarden or overseer of the parish in which the green or land is situated, or of the person in whom the soil of the green or land may be vested, for each and every offence, over and above the damages occasioned thereby, are liable to a penalty not exceeding 408. Under the General Inclosure Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, s. 15, provision is made for preserving town and village greens for the use of the inhabitants; and by sect. 73 for allotments of commons as places of exercise and recreation of the inhabitants of the parish and neighbourhood. These provisions, however, concern the churchwardens and overseers of the parishes in which the greens and commons may be situated, and not local authorities for the purposes of the present Act. Unfenced shafts of metalliferous mines. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 77. s. 13.-By the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, the top of the shaft and any side entrance from the surface are to be kept securely fenced for the prevention of accidents; and any shaft or side entrance which is not fenced as required by the Act, and is within fifty yards of any highway, road, footpath, or place of public resort, or is in open or unenclosed land, or is required by an inspector of mines to be fenced, shall be deemed to be a nuisance within the meaning of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 8, and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 19, i.e., now, s. 91 of the present Act. Nuisances arising from noxious trades, etc.-The carrying on of noxious trades or manufactures was not legalised by the proviso to the 8th section of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, which was similar to the first proviso to the above section of this Act, and which only defined the conditions upon which accumulations or deposits which were injurious to health might be suffered to remain on the premises; namely, that the accumulation or deposit had not been kept longer than was necessary for the purposes of the particular business or manufacture, and that the best available means had been taken for protecting the public from injury to health thereby. It is not enough that the precautions ordinarily adopted in the particular trade or manufacture have been observed, for they must be the best available means which can be adopted for securing the end in view. Schofield v. Schunck, 19 J. P. 84. In determining this question the justices will doubtless be guided more by the opinions of scientific persons than by considerations of the expense which "the best available means would cost. Even though the best available means have been adopted, the trade or employment may continue a nuisance or injurious to health, and though it will in that case be not punishable under this Act, persons injured thereby have still their private remedy, for it is provided by s. 111, post, that nothing in this part of the Act shall impair any other power of abating nuisances under this or any other Act, or at common law or in equity. Nuisances arising from alkali works. 26 & 27 Vict. c. 124. There is another class of nuisances arising from noxious trades, for the suppression of which special provision has been made, and though in regard to them no action can be taken by the local authority under the Public Health |