2. The collecting of a crowd to the annoyance of a a neighbourhood. Illustration. Brewster, the proprietor of a musichall, hired a house and grounds near Wolverhampton, called Waterloo House, for two years, and held there "a monster fête " every Monday and Friday, with music, dancing, and fireworks, which brought together a great crowd of noisy and disorderly people. On a bill being filed by the owner of an adjoining house, an injunction, restraining the nuisance, was granted.(a)

3. The making of great and unjustifiable noises in the

night-time. Illustration.

Smith was convicted on an indictment and fined £5 for making great noises in the night with a speaking-trumpet, to the disturbance of the neighbourhood.(b)

[NOTE. A nuisance by noise is emphatically one of degree.(c)]

4. The obstructing of a thoroughfare.

Illustration. James set up an open gate, upon hinges, across a highway. Hayward, one of the public, who was obstructed by it, broke it down. James sued him in trespass for damaging the gate. It was held that the gate was a common nuisance, and Hayward was justified in removing the obstruction.(d)

[NOTE. To entitle a person to bring an action for

an obstruction on a highway, he must show that he has sustained a particular, direct, and sub

(a) Walker v. Brewster, L. R. 5 Eq. 25.
(b) Rex v. Smith, 1 Str. 704.
(c) Jenkins v. Jackson, 40 Ch. D. 71.

(d) James v. Hayward, Cro. Car. 184.

stantial injury beyond that which is done to the

public.(e)]

II. Resulting from Acts of Omission.

1. The stoppage of drains and watercourses, through

failure to clean out and repair them.

2. The keeping of a dangerous place unfenced upon pre-
mises on which
persons are invited to come on lawful

business.
Illustration. Indermaur, a journeyman gas-fitter,
was sent by his employer to work upon a contract
with Dames, a sugar refiner, upon Dames' pre-
mises. On the first floor was a hole, or shoot,
used for lowering goods. It was unfenced, and
Indermaur, crossing the floor, in ignorance of the
danger, fell through the hole and fractured his
spine. In an action against Dames, it was held
that there was an obligation to fence the hole for
the protection of strangers coming on the premises
upon lawful business. (f)

[NOTE. This obligation subsists in favour of
strangers coming upon lawful business, but does
not extend to a bare licensee.

Illustration. Southcote went to stay at Stanley's hotel as a visitor, and in leaving the hotel had to pass through a glass-door. A large piece of glass in the door was loose, and fell upon and injured him. In an action by Southcote, it was held that a visitor in a house was in the same position as a servant or other member of the household; and that there was no obligation upon Stanley to guard him

(e) Winterbottom v. Earl Derby, L. R. 2 Ex. 316; Benjamin v. Stowe, L. R.. 9 C. P. 400; 43 L. J. C. P. 162.

(f) Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274.

from the consequences of a mere act of omis

sion.(a)

3. The suffering to escape any dangerous thing, or animal,
which has been lawfully brought on the premises.
(i) Creatures naturally mischievous, like a rattle-
snake, are kept by the owner at his peril.

(ii) Creatures not naturally mischievous, like dogs
and horses, are not kept at the owner's peril,

Unless he has notice that they are of a mischievous disposition.(b)

4. To gather together in one spot patients suffering from infectious diseases without using such safeguards as

not to endanger the public health by communicating the infectious disease.(c)

A NUISANCE MAY BE

L. Public.

§ REMEDIES-
(i) Injunction.
(ii) Indictment.

§ CHARACTERISTICS--

(i) It cannot become lawful by user for any length of time.(d)

(ii) It cannot be abated by, and

(iii) Is not actionable at the suit of a private individual, Unless he has suffered some particular damage beyond what is common to others.

For instance. If Jones digs a hole in a public thoroughfare, he may be indicted for the nuisance, but an action will not lie against him. But if Smith falls into the hole and breaks his leg, Smith will at once be able to maintain an action against him.

(a) Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247.

(b) May v. Burdett, 9 Q. B. 110.

(c) Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill, 6 App. Cas. 193.
(d) R. v. Cross, 3 Camp. 227.

II. Private.

§ REMEDIES

(i) Injunction.

(ii) Action.

§ CHARACTERISTICS—

(i) It becomes lawful after exercise for twenty years
without interruption.(e)

(ii) It is actionable at the suit of the party injured,
(iii) It may be abated by the party injured after
notice and request to abate the nuisance given

to the wrongdoer.

§ It is no answer to an action for a nuisance to say

1. That the nuisance was maintained in a suitable and con

venient place.

Illustration. Turnley, who had purchased some building

land at Norwood, proceeded to burn bricks thereon; the smoke and smell of which caused great annoyance to his adjoining neighbour, Bamford. In an action by the latter, Turnley raised as a defence that the nuisance was committed on a proper and convenient spot; but the court held that this was no answer.(ƒ)

2. That it is for the benefit of the public.

Illustration. Potter had some cotton-printing works on the Glossop brook. From lower down the stream, at "Nag's Pool," the Stockport Waterworks Company drew their water for the supply of Stockport. They complained that Potter's works defiled the stream, and in an action by them, Potter, amongst other defences, pleaded that his trade was carried on for purposes necessary and useful to the community. It was held to be no defence.(g)

(e) Elliotson v. Feetham, 2 Bing. N. C. 134.

(f) Bamford v. Turnley, 31 L. J. Q. B. 286.

(g) Stockport Waterworks Company v. Potter, 31 L. J Ex. 9.

P

3. That the party injured has come to the nuisance.

Illustration. Sir Henry de Hoghton had an estate near St. Helen's. In 1859 he sold a portion to the St. Helen's Smelting Company, who there erected copper works. In 1860 he sold another portion, called Bold Hall, to Tipping. It was not denied that before purchasing Tipping had notice of the existence of the copper works. Shortly afterwards Tipping applied for an injunction against the company, having already recovered substantial damage in an action at law, for injury done to his land by the smoke from the works. The defendants contended that the plaintiff, having come to the nuisance, was not entitled to relief in equity. But the court granted the injunction(a).

(a) Tipping v. St. Helen's Smelting Company, L. R. 1 Ch. 66.