02.04.2013 Views

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• only<br />

244 NUISANCE.<br />

of the public to pass and repass along any highway-; but<br />

there is involved in this the right occasionally to draw up a<br />

vehicle to one side of the highway for the purpose of enabling<br />

passengers to alight, or of loading or unloading goods. 1<br />

Such<br />

a temporary stoppage is but a reasonable use of the highway<br />

and not an indictable obstruction, although it may to some<br />

extent impede or interfere with the traffic. A navigable<br />

river is a public highway as far as the ebb and flow of the<br />

tide extends ; yet the public have a right to anchor ships in<br />

such part of the river for a reasonable time to take in cargo. 2<br />

But a riparian owner has no right to erect any permanent<br />

obstruction in such a river (such as a landing-stage on piles),<br />

even though it may be a convenience to some of the public. 3<br />

So it is often necessary and proper to obstruct the traffic for<br />

the purpose of repairing the roadway, or the drains or gas<br />

pipes beneath, or of pulling down and rebuilding a house on<br />

the land immediately adjoining the highway. But to allow<br />

waggons to stand before a warehouse so as to occupy a great<br />

part of the street for several hours by day and night is an<br />

indictable misdemeanour. 4<br />

It will be a defence to an indictment for a public nuisance,<br />

if it can be established that every one, whose health, comfort<br />

or property is in any way in danger of being impaired by it,<br />

could by exercising a moderate and reasonable degree of<br />

caution avoid all chance of harm ; but not if the danger can<br />

be averted by a degree of prudence and care, the con-<br />

tinual exercise of which cannot be reasonably expected from<br />

the innocent public. 5<br />

Again, it will be a defence to an indictment if the defendant<br />

can show that he was authorised by statute to do the acts<br />

which caused the nuisance. But the Court will not construe<br />

a statute as justifying a nuisance, unless the words are clear<br />

and express. 6<br />

1 See Thorpe v. Brumfitt (1873), L. E. 8 Ch. 650.<br />

2 B. v. Bussel. (1827), 6 B. & C. 566.<br />

8 Att.-Gen. v. Terry (1874), L. E. 9 Ch. 423.<br />

* B. v. Bussell (1805), 6 East, 427 ; Att.-Gen. v. Brighton, #c, Supply Asso-<br />

ciation, [1900] 1 Ch. 276.<br />

6 Lister's Case (1857), Dearsl. & B. 209.<br />

See Hill v. Metropolitan Asylum District Board (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 433 ;<br />

and the judgment of Bowen, L. J., in Truman v. L. B. » S. C. By. Co. (1885), 29<br />

Uh. I>. at p. 108 ; and post, p. 5J1.<br />

*

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!