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. (c) 2. That it is for the benefit of the public. 66 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. (d) 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. (e) (c) Bamford v. Turnley, 31 L. J. Q. B. 286. (d) Stockport Waterworks Company v. Potter, 31 L. J. Ex. 9. CHAPTER II. OF THE NEGLIGENT USE OF REAL PROPERTY. § Where one man by want of proper care in the management of his land, or the buildings thereon, causes injury to the person or property (real or personal) of another, he is liable in damages to that other. § FIRE. For example 1. Where he overloads the floor of a warehouse, so that the floor falls on, and damages the goods of another, which are in the room beneath. (a) 2. Where he makes an excavation in his land without due care, which causes a building on adjoining land to fall. (b) 3. Where a railway company leave open their gates on a level crossing, through which cattle stray on to the line, and are injured. (c) Unless the party injured was himself negligent, and by At common law every person who lights a fire on his (a) Edwards v. Halinder, Poph. 46. (b) Trower v. Chadwick, 3 Sc. 722. (c) Fawcett v. Midland Railway Company, 16 Q. B. 618. [NOTE. Accidentally means (i) Originating through mere chance, and without negligence; or (ii) The cause of which cannot be traced. (e)] [As to the spreading of fires from locomotive engines, &c., see post, Part VII.] (e) Pilliter v. Phippard, 11 Q. B. 357. Р PART III. OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF OWNERS OF CHATTELS. CHAPTER I. TRESPASS AND CONVERSION. I. TRESPASS TO CHATTELS is the wrongful intermeddling with the goods of another, to which that other has a present right of possession. Illustration. Upon the Custom House Quay there was a hut, in which certain porters each had a box, where they could deposit parcels, until a ship was ready to receive them. Bushell, a porter, put in certain goods, and so deposited them as to block the opening of the box of Miller, another porter. Miller, in order to get at his box, moved Bushell's parcel about a yard towards the door, and did not replace it. The goods in consequence were lost. Bushell sued Miller for a conversion of the goods. But the court held that there was no conversion, though if he had brought trespass he might have recovered. (a) II. CONVERSION is the unauthorized disposal of the chattels of another, by which that other, having a present right to them, is deprived of the same. § SUCH UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL MAY BE EXERCISED BY1. The taking or using the chattels. (a) Bushell v. Miller, 1 Str. 128. (i) For the benefit of the wrongdoer himself. Illustration. One H. K. Bailey, falsely pretend ing that he was buying for one Seddon, obtained from Fowler & Co. delivery of thirteen bales of cotton, of the value of £244 19s. 8d. Bailey sold the cotton to and received the price from Hollins & Co., cotton brokers, who sold it to Nicholls & Co., by whom the cotton was spun into yarn. On discovering the fraud of Bailey, Fowler & Co. sued Hollins & Co. in trover for the cotton, and the court held that they were liable for the conversion. (b) 2. By the consumption, destruction, or material alteration of the chattel. Illustration. Atkinson drew some of the contents out of a vessel containing liquor, the property of Richardson, and filled it up with water. In an action of trover it was held that this was a conversion of all the contents of the vessel. (c) 3. By an unqualified refusal to deliver up, after demand, what has lawfully come into the possession of the wrongdoer. Illustration. Baldwin was a journeyman carpenter, who was sent by his master to work for hire in the Queen's yard. On his declining to go to work any longer, the surveyor of the works refused to allow him to remove his tools, pretending a usage to detain them, to enforce workmen to continue until the Queen's work was done. In an action of trover for the tools, this was held to be an act of conversion. (d) (b) Fowler v. Hollins, L. R. 7 Q. B. 616. |