seems, in such a case-at all events unless there has been a continuance of sensible damage for the requisite period(p).

If a person has acquiesced in the erection of chemical or smelting works, in ignorance of the nuisance that will arise from them when they are put into operation, the acquiescence in the erection is no acquiescence in the nuisance arising from them, and will not preclude him from the remedy by injunction(2). And if the person injured has refrained from taking any active steps to abate or put an end to a nuisance in consequence of assurances he has received from the persons creating the nuisance that measures would be taken to put a stop to it, there is no lâches on his part, and no such acquiescence as will deprive him of his right to an injunction(r). Nor will the fact that the plaintiff has purchased the land with full knowledge of the nuisance, disentitle him to relief(s). Nor the fact that the plaintiff is much more injured by many other people, provided a definite injury can be traced to the defendant(t).

295 Injunction to prevent the continuance of noisy nuisances.-If a belfry is erected so near to the dwelling-house of the plaintiff, that the bells when rung prevent people from being heard whilst talking in the house, or disturb the rest of the inmates at night, this is such an invasion of the domestic comfort and enjoyment of a man's home as entitles him to an injunction to prevent the nuisance(u).

296 Prevention of public nuisances-Writs of prohibition were formerly issued by courts of common law to prevent the continuance of a public nuisance, such as the bowling alley near St. Dunstan's Church; the rope-dancer's stage at Charing Cross; and the play-house in Little Lincoln's Inn Fields(v); and courts of equity will interfere by injunc

(p) Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells, L. R., 1 Eq. Ca. 161; S. C. 1 Ch. App. 349. Crossley v. Lightowler, infra. But see Dana v. Valentine, 5 Met. 8.

(g) Bankart v. Houghton, 27 Beav. 431; 28 Law J., Ch. 473.

(r) Atty.-Gen. v. Birmingham, 4 Kay & J. 546. Davies v. Marshall, 31 Law J., C. P. 61. (8) Tipping v. St. Helen's Smelting Co., L. R., 1 Ch. App. 66. King v. Morris, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Green (N. J.), 397. But where one person purchases land of another, after being informed that it is the vendor's intention to erect a barn on his own land near the land conveyed, the purchaser cannot afterwards enjoin the erection of the barn on the ground that it would be a nuisance and lessen the value of his property. Curtis v. Winslow, 38 Vt. 690. (t) Crossley v. Lightowler, L. R., 3 Eq. Ca. 279. State, 4 Wis. 387.

Rogers v. Stewart, 5 Vt. 215. Douglass v.

(u) Soltau v. De Held, 2 Sim. N. S. 133. So a party may be enjoined from holding public exhibitions or entertainments upon his premises, which call together a noisy and disorderly crowd; and it has been held that the playing of a powerful band of music, twice a week, for several hours continuously, within one hundred yards of a dwelling house, is a nuisance which a court of equity will restrain. Walker v. Brewster, L. R., 5 Eq. Cas. 25. So where a lawful business is carried on at unreasonable hours, to the annoyance and discomfort of neighbors, a court of equity will restrain it. Dennis . Eckhardt, 3 Grant (Penn.), 390.

(v) Hall's case, 1 Mod. 76. Rex v. Betterton, 5 Mod. 142; Skin. 625, 627. Rex'v. Dorset Justices, 15 East, 594.

tion to prevent public nuisances(w), such as nuisances to public rivers, and public harbors(x), and public roads(y); and magistrates, boards. of health, and commissioners of public works, may be restrained from exercising their statutory powers, so as to create or occasion a public Quisance(yy).

Where, by an Act of Parliament, a corporation were directed to cause a piece of land to be drained and leveled, and kept in a proper condition, for purposes of public recreation, the court restrained the corporation from using it for the holding of a cattle fair(z). In informations and proceedings for the prevention of public nuisances, the ordinary course is for the Attorney-General to sue, as representing the public; but individuals may come forward and invoke the assistance of the court when they have themselves individually sustained damage, and the interposition of the court is required for the protection of their property(a), or the preservation of the beneficial use, occupation, and enjoyment of it(b).

The same principles of law guide the interference of the court whether the nuisance be a public or a private nuisance(c). However,

(w) Columbus v. Jaques, 30 Ga. 506. People v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 396. Parrish v. Steph. ens, 1 Oregon, 73. Hamilton v. Whiteridge, 11 Md. 128. Walker v. Shepardson, 2 Wis. 384. Rowe v. Granite Bridge Co., 21 Pick. 344. Bradsher v. Lea, 3 Ired. Ch. 301. State v. Mayor of Mobile, 5 Porter, 279.

(z) People v. Vanderbilt, 26 N. Y. 287. Attorney-General v. Hudson R. R. Co., 1 Stock. (N. J.) 526.

(y) Green v. Oakes, 17 Ill. 249. Fort v. Groves, 29 Md. 188. Ewell v. Greenwood, 26 Iowa, 377.

(yy) Atty.-Gen. v. Forbes, 2 Myl. & Cr. 133. See post, ch. 16, s. 3.

(z) Atty.-Gen. v. Corp. of Southampton, 29 Law J., Ch. 282; 1 Giff. 363. People v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 396. Sparhawk v. Union Passenger R. R. Co., 54 Penn. St. 401.

(a) Crowder v. Tinkler, 19 Ves. 621. Atty.-Gen. v. Forbes, 2 Myl. & Cr. 129. Spencer v. Lond. & Birm. Rail. Co., 1 Rail. C. 159; 8 Sim. 193. Sampson v. Smith, 8 Sim. 272. Hepburn v. Lordan, 34 L. J., Ch. 293. Parrish v. Stephens, 1 Oregon, 73. Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N, Y. 611. Zabriskie v. Jersey, etc., R. R. Co., 2 Beasley (N. J.), 314. Corning v. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Ch. 439. Rosser v. Randolph, 7 Porter, 238. Walker v. Shepardson, 2 Wis. 384. Green v. Oakes, 17 Ill. 249.

But to entitle a private individual to invoke the interposition of a court of equity to restrain a public nuisance, he must show special damage apprehended or sustained peculiar to himself and distinct from that suffered by the public at large. Allen v. Board of Freeholders, 2 Beasley (N. J.), 68. Hinchman v. Patterson Horse R. R. Co., 2 Green (N. J.), 75. Hartshorn v. South Reading, 3 Allen (Mass.), 501 Bechtel v. Carslake, 3 Stoct. (N. J.) 500. Bigelow v. Hartford Bridge Co. 14 Conn. 565. Delaware & Maryland R. R. Co v. Stump, 8 Gill. & J. 479. Beveridge v. Lacey, 3 Rand. 63. Black v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co., 58 Penn. St. 249. The injury must be different, not merely greater in degree. Hartshorn v. South Reading, 3 Allen (Mass.), 501. The injury must also be one for which the law does not afford adequate relief. Mayor of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Peters, 91. Vanwinkle v. Curtis, 2 Green Ch. 422. Rosser v. Randolph, 7 Porter, 238. Water Commissioners . Hudson, 2 Beasley (N. J.), 420. Fort v. Groves, 29 Md. 188. Finley v. Thayer, 42 III. 350. Attorney-General v. Heishon, 2 Green (N. J.), 410. New Boston Coal, etc., Co., v. Pottsville Water Co., 54 Penn. St. 164. Camp v. Matheson, 30 Ga. 170. Banks v. Bussey, 34 Md. 437.

(b) Soltau v. De Held, supra.

(c) Att..Gen. v. Sheff. Gas. Co., 3 DeGex, M. & G. 315; 22 Law J., Ch. 812.

in the former case, where the pubiic injury purports to be asserted, it is not immaterial, at least upon an interlocutory application, e.g., for an injunction to restrain a nuisance, to look into the motives from which the case is brought forward(d).

The court will not grant an interlocutory injunction before the hearing of the cause, unless it is necessary for the protection of property, or the prevention of some threatened injury thereto(e); nor will it interfere in any case, as we have seen, to protect a dry legal right or title, merely because the legal right is infringed(ƒ).

297 Prevention of public nuisances by indictment.-In the case of public nuisances, such as obstructions in public thoroughfares or navigable rivers, or suffering boughs of trees to overhang highways, or ditches adjoining them to become foul and choked up, or buildings by the side of public thoroughfares to become ruinous, the remedy is by indictment in respect of the public injury(g), and by action in respect of any particular or special damage sustained by individuals(h).

The following nuisances have been held indictable:-The overcrowding of houses with poor people in time of infection of plague, and thereby endangering the health of the neighborhood(); the carrying of people infected with contagious disorders along public thoroughfares in such a way as to endanger the health of the passengers(); or the exposure for sale in a public place of a horse affected with glanders(); the keeping of large quantities of gunpowder in dangerous proximity to populous neighborhoods(); the carrying on of noxious and offensive manufactures in public places, or adjoining public thoroughfares, so as seriously to incommode and annoy large numbers of persons(m); holding out inducements to people to collect together in large crowds, to the obstruction of public thoroughfares, the tread

(d) Att. Gen. v. Cambridge Gas Co., L. R., 4 Ch. App. 71. (e) Att. Gen. v. United King. Elect. Tel. Co., ante, p. 93. (f) Wandsworth Board v. Lond. & S. W. R., ante, p. 92. N. H. 426.

(g) Rex v. Russell, 6 East, 427. Reg. v. Watson, 2 Ld. Raym. 856.

Bassett v. Salisbury, etc., Co., 47

Rex v. Cross, 3 Campb. 226.
Weld v. Hornby, 7 East, 195.

Gerrish v. Brown, 51 Me. 256. State v. Freeport, 43 Me. 198. 252. Rowe v. Granite Bridge Co., 21 Pick. 344.

Rex v. Jones, 3 Campb. 230. Reg. v. Leech, 6 Mod. 145. Harvey v. Dewoody, 18 Ark.

(h) Ante, p. 242. Rex v. Dewsnap, 16 East, 196. Gerrish v. Brown, 51 Me. 256. Harvey v. Dewoody, 18 Ark. 252.

(i) 2 Roll. Abr. 139, pl. 3. See Meeker v. Van Rensselaer, 15 Wend. 397; State v. Purse, 4 McCord, 472.

(j) Rex v. Vantandillo, 4 M. & S. 73.

(k) Reg. v. Henson, 1 Dearsl. C. C. 24.

(1) Rex v. Taylor, 2 Str. 1167. Biggs v. Mitchell, 31 Law J., M. C. 163. See Cheatham v. Shearon, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 213; People v. Sands, 1 Johns. 78.

(m) Rex v. White, 1 Burr. 335. Rex v. Pappineau, 2 Str. 686. Rex. Neil, 2 C. & P. 485. State v. Wetherall, 5 Harring. (Del.) 487.

ing down the grass of the neighboring meadows, the destruction of fences, or the creation of alarm and disturbance in the surrounding neighborhood(n); the making of a great noise in the night with a speaking trumpet, to the disturbance of divers householders(); sawing of logs of timber in a public street, and incumbering a road or footpath with barrels of beer(p); the opening of new coal-holes, and unloading coals in a public thoroughfare, in places where no coal-hole previously existed, and where the highway was not originally dedicated subject to the use of it for domestic coaling(); making excavations and openings in the soil of a highway, or in the pavement of a public street, for water, gas, sewerage, or other purposes, without parliamentary authority(); the use on a highway of a traction steamengine, which, by its noise and appearance, frightens horses, and makes the highway dangerous to persons riding or driving(s); mixing of large quantities of alum and deleterious and prohibited ingredients in bread, intended for the use and consumption of the public(t); keeping of a disorderly house, gaming-house, or bawdy-house(u); indecent bathing(x), and the indecent exposure of the person in any public place within view of persons resorting there, or within view of the inhabitants of a dwelling-house(y); and a place may be a public place,

(n) Rex v. Moore, 3 B. & Ad. 184. One who collects a large crowd in the public highways and streets of a city by addressing violent and indecent language to persons passing along the highway, is indictable for committing a common nuisance. Barker v. Commonwealth, 19 Penn. (7 Harris) 412. A way acquired by a town by grant is a private way, and a nuisance on it will not be indictable. Commonwealth v. Low, 3 Pick. 408.

(0) Rex v. Higginson, 2 Burr. 1233. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 6 Cush. 80.

(p) Rex v. Jones, 3 Campb. 229. State v. Atkinson, 24 Vt. 448. The making of a fence across a public highway is a public nuisance under the statutes of Indiana, and indictable as such. State v. Miskimmons, 2 Carter, 440.

(g) Cockburn, C. J., 29 Law J., M. C, 123.

(r) Reg. v. Longton Gas Co., 29 Law J., M. C. 119. A person may be indicted for cutting a canal for mill purposes across a highway; and so may persons continuing the nuisance. State v. Yarrell, 12 Ired. 130. So a person may be indicted for so building a mill dam as to overflow a highway. State v. Phipps, 4 Ind. 515.

(8) Watkins v. Redden, ante, p. 204.

(t) Rex v. Dixon, 3 M. & S. 11. Or adulterating milk, Commonwealth v. Nichols, 10 Allen (Mass.), 199. Commonwealth v. Farren, 9 Allen (Mass.), 489. People v. Fauerbuck, 5 Pick. 311. Or selling unwholesome provisions, State v. Smith, 3 Hawks, 378. See 35 & 36 Vict. c. *74, against the adulteration of food; c. 94, ss. 19-22, against the adulteration of liquor. See 6 & 7 Wm. IV., c. 37, s. 8, Core v. James, L. R., 7 Q. B. 135. (u) Rex v. Smith, 2 Str. 704. Reg. v. Rogier, 1 B. & C. 272. Reg. v. Williams, 1 Salk. 383. As to the meaning of the word "keeping," see Reg. v. Stannard, 33 L. J., M. C. 61. See also Garrett v. Messenger, L. R., 2C. P. 583; State v. Bertheol, 6 Blackf. 474; State v. Buckley, 5 Harring. (Del.)508; State v. Bailey, 1 Foster (N. H.), 313; State v. Haines, 30 Me. 65; Bloomhuff v. State, 8 Blackf. 205; Smith v. Commonwealth, 6 B. Mon. 21. One who demises a house with the intent that it shall be kept for purposes of prostitution, may be indicted as a keeper of a bawdy house, and his lessee may be joined with him in the indictment. People v. Erwin, 4 Denio, 129. One who keeps a house in such a manner as to disturb the neighborhood, and to tend to corrupt the public morals, may be indicted. People v. Carey, 4 Park. 238.

(z) Rex v. Crunden, ante, p. 47.

(y) Sidley's case, 1 Sid. 168. Holmes' case, Dears. Cr. C. 207.

although it is not a highway or place of public resort(z). But the exposure must be in the presence or within view of more persons than one, in order to render it a public nuisance(a), and it must be a wilful and indecent exposure, and not such an exposure as may be made in a public urinal(b), or under the pressure of paramount necessity (bb).

It is no defence to an indictment for a public nuisance to show that the public generally are benefited by it, though a portion of the public may be inconvenienced, "for if the violation of rights which belong to any part of the public is to be vindicated by the benefit which may arise to another part of the public elsewhere, inquiries would be introduced of a most vague and unsatisfactory nature, and speculations entered into which no jury could be expected properly to decide”(c). 298 Nuisances in public highways." Highway is the genus of all public ways, as well cart, horse, and foot-ways, and an indictment lies for any one of these ways, if they be common to all the Queen's subjects having occasion to pass there; that is, if it be a foot-way only, common to them all, or a horse-way and a prime-way; and these are not altæ regiæ viæ, for that is the great highway common to cart, horse, and foot, that please to use it "(d).

299 Indictment against a corporation.-A corporation or a railway company is as much amenable to an indictment for obstructing a public thoroughfare as any private person is(dd).

(z) Reg. v. Thallman, 33 L. J., M. C. 58.

"It is as easy," observes Lord Den

(a) Reg. v. Watson, 2 Cox, Cr. C. 376. Webb's case, 1 Den. Cr. C. 338; 2 C. & K. 933. Elliot's case, Leigh & Cave, C. C. R. 103.

(b) Reg. v. Orchard, 3 Cox, Cr. C. 248. But see Reg. v. Harris, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 282. (bb) A common scold may be indicted as a nuisance. Commonwealth v. Mohn, 52 Penn. St. 243. Profane cursing and swearing in public is indictable as a common nuisance. State v. Graham, 3 Sneed (Tenn.), 134. Unless it be in North Carolina, where one may curse and swear so loudly at a tavern as to break up a singing school near by, and yet commit no nuisance. State v. Baldwin, 1 Dev. & Bat. 195. A constable obstructing a street by a sale, may be indicted as a nuisance. Commonwealth v. Milliman 13 Serg. & R. 403. Reckless driving through the streets of a populous city in a manner to endanger the safety of the inhabitants, is also an indictable offence. United States v. Hart, Pet. C. C. 390. The keeping of a house in a negligent and filthy state, to the annoyance of the neighborhood and community, may be an indictable offence. State v. Purse, 4 McCord, 472. So letting a stallion to mares on the public street of a town and in view of the inhabitants, is indictable as a nuisance. Crane v. State, 3 Ind. 193.

(c) Ld. Denman, C.J., Rex v. Ward, 4 Ad. & E 460. Rex v. Tindall, 6 Ad. & E. 143, Hegingbotham v. East. & Cont. St. Packet Co., ante, p. 194. Reg. v. Train, 31 Law J., M. C. 169; Q. B. 179, overruling on this point Rex v. Russell, 6 B. & C. 566. Respublica v. Caldwell, 1 Dall. 150. So it is no defence to an indictment for a nuisance that at the time it was created no inhabitants dwelt in the neighborhood; nor that at the time of the action other erections of a similar character are equally injurious to the public health. Douglas v. State, 4 Wis. 387. Nor is it any defence to an indictment for carrying on a noxious trade in a public place, that the proper officers have neglected to exercise their statutory powers in assigning a place for the exercise of the trade. State v. Hart, 34 Me. 36.

(d) Reg. v. Saintiff, 6 Mod. 256.

(dd) Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. State, 3 Head (Tenn,), 523. See State v. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 30 Vt. 108.