Odger's English Common Law

242 NUISANCE.
the nuisance or was guilty of any negligence. It is enough
that the nuisance exists on or issues from his premises.
The owner or occupier of land is liable if he improperly
permits a nuisance to continue thereon ; for " neglecting to
do a thing which the common good requires " is a public
nuisance. 1
Moreover, where works are carried on for the
profit of the owner by his servants or agents, he is liable
to be indicted for a public nuisance caused by their acts in
carrying on the works, though done by them without his
knowledge and contrary to his general orders. 2
The defendant was the owner and occupier of a vacant piece of land in
the metropolis. He had surrounded it by a hoarding ; but people threw
filth and refuse over, and broke up the hoarding, so that the condition of
the land and the use to which it was put constituted a continuing public
nuisance. It was held that it was a common law duty of the owner of the
piece of land to prevent it from being so used as to be a public nuisance,
and an injunction was granted to enforce the performance of that duty.
" If the owner of a piece of land does permit it to be in such a state,
e.g., smothered or covered with filth, that it is a public nuisance, he
.commits an indictable offence. He has no defence whatever to an indictment
for such a public nuisance. It is no defence to say, ' I did not put
the filth on, but somebody else did.' He must provide against this if he
can. His business is to prevent his land from being a public nuisance." 3
In another case the defendant was an old man of over eighty years of age,
and was therefore unable to personally superintend the working of his slate
•quarry, which was managed for him by his sons. This quarry had no
spoil-bank, and the rubbish from it was stacked at a place close to the bank
of a river. The defendant had erected a wall to prevent it from falling
into the river ; but in 1847 this wall was carried away by a heavy flood,
and from that time all the rubbish deposited there slid into the river and
eventually caused a great obstruction to the navigation of it. It was held
that the fact that both the defendant and his sons had prohibited their
men from depositing rubbish there afforded the defendant no defence to an
indictment for the nuisance which had been created. 4
But where smoke was emitted for ten minutes from the furnace of a
pottery works through the negligence of a stoker, and the owner was summoned
for negligently using the furnace, it was held that he was not
•criminally responsible, as his furnace was properly constructed, and he had
taken care to employ an efficient foreman to superintend the stokers. 6
- 1 Hawk. P. C, o. 32, 4. Nuisances, s. 1 ; quoted with approval by Lindley,
X-. J., in Att.-Gen. v. Tod Heatley, [1897] 1 Ch. at p. 566.
a R. v. Stephen* (1886), L. R. 1 Q. B. 702 ; cf. Harris v. Perry A- Co., [1913]
2 K. B. 219.
3 Per Lindley, L. J., in Att.-Gen. v. Tod Heatley, [1897] 1 Ch. at p. 566.
* M. v. Stephens, supra.
8 ChUholm v. Doulton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 736. On the other hand, in a civil action
brought in respect of a private nuisance a master will be held liable for every act of