Odger's English Common Law

504 NUISANCE.
an obligation to pave with wood paving certain parts of a road on which
their tramway was laid, used for that purpose wood blocks coated with
creosote. The fumes given off by the creosote injured plants and shrubs
belonging to the plaintiff, a market gardener, whose premises were near the
road. There was another kind of wood paving in use, which the defendants
might have used and which could not have caused injury to the plaintiff's
plants and shrubs. The jury found that according to the defendants'
knowledge at the time it was reasonably necessary for them to pave the
road as they did, but that in the light of the evidence given at the trial it
was not reasonably necessary, and it was held that the defendants were not
authorised by their special Act to use the particular kind of wood paving
which they had used and that, although they did not know that the use of
creosoted wood might cause damage and were not guilty of negligence,
they were, upon the principle laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher, 1 liable to
the plaintiff in respect of the damage sustained by him. 3
It is also a public nuisance to place upon the market or
offer for sale meat or provisions of any sort which are unfit
for human food. The criminal and civil liability of one who
sells such food is regulated by the Sale of Food and Drugs
Acts. 3
Victuallers, butchers and other common dealers in
provisions are not merely presumed to undertake to supply a
good and merchantable article, as are dealers in other com-
modities ; but they are also liable to punishment for selling
corrupt victuals, and are therefore responsible civilly to those
customers to whom they sell such victuals for any special
or particular injury which results. 4
Sometimes the word
"knowingly," " wilfully" or the like appears in the section
creating the offence, and in such cases guilty knowledge
must be proved, though this is not necessary where such
words are not in the section. 5 And it is specially provided °
that the accused may recover from the person who sold him
the article in question the penalties and costs incurred, if the
sale to him was a breach of contract and if he bought
1 (1868) L. K. 3 H. L. 330.
2 West v. Bristol Tramways Co., [1908] 2 K. B. 14 ; and see Mansell v. Webb
(1918), 88 L. J. K. B. 323.
» 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63) ; 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 30) ; 1899 (62 & 63 Vict.
c. 51) ; and see the Public Health (Eegulations as to Food) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. VII.
c. 32), and the regulations issued thereunder by the Local Government Board.
* Shillito v. Thompson (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 12 ; Pearlts, Gunston $ Tee, Ltd. v.
Ward, [1902] 2K.B.1. * '
6 Setts v. Armstead (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 771 ; Spiers $ Pond v. Bennett, T1896]
2 Q. B. 65 ; Smithies t. Bridge, [1902] 2 K. B. 13.
e 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63, s. 28.