View report page

59
been pulled down in 1882, and the site was then surrounded by a hoarding.
No new buildings had, in the meantime, been erected 011 the land, and it
was said that the hoarding had become out of repair, and that the land
had been used as a receptacle for dead dogs and cats, offal, and all kinds
of refuse, and for various objectionable purposes.
The Vestry complained that the condition of the land, and the uses to
which it was being put, were such as to constitute a serious nuisance to
the inhabitants of the parishes, and to be injurious to the health of the
people living near the land, and asked for an injunction to restrain the
owners from allowing the land to be and remain in such a state as to be
a nuisance and injurious to health.
It appeared that the gradual accumulation of garbage and rubbish upon
the land had caused the surface to be raised some two feet above the
adjoining roadway, so that in wet weather foul water flowed from the
land 011 to the roadway.
The question at issue appeared to be whether the duty of keeping the
land clean devolved upon the owner or upon the Vestry, under the provisions
of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
The case was heard before Kekewich, J., 011 November 24th, 1896,
when the injunction was refused.
In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Kekewich remarked that by
section 13 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the Vestry were
empowered to take proceedings in the High Court to enforce the abatement
or prohibition of any nuisance. Also that they had another remedy
given them by section 35 of the same Act, under which they were
empowered to serve a notice 011 the owner of any obnoxious matter, or
the occupier of the premises 011 which it existed, requiring him to remove
the same, and if the notice was not complied with, then to remove the
matter themselves and to recover the expenses in a summary way from
the former owner of the matter removed, 01* from the owner or occupier
of the premises.
The learned Judge pointed out that it would not be reasonable to impose
upon the owner of the land the serious duty of preventing nuisances
from arising on the land, and that the Vestry could remove the
obnoxious matter under the powers of the 35th section of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, and recover the expenses incurred from the
owner, and he therefore dismissed the action.
The Vestry decided to appeal against the above judgment,
but since this, the land has been thoroughly cleared of all
accumulation of rubbish. The hoarding has been repaired and
a new gate erected.
Subsequent proceedings in Court of Appeal before Lords
Justices Lindley, Smith and Rigby, 18th February, 1897:—
Mr. Warrington, Q.G., and Mr. Morton Smith appeared for the
appellants ; and Mr. Renshaw, Q.C., and Mr. Ingpen for the respondents.
At the conclusion of the arguments of the respondents' counsel,
Lord Justice Lindley, addressing Mr. Warrington, said that their
Lordships had been considering what they ought to do, and that the
order which they suggested was this : Discharge the order appealed
from, and allow the appeal. Declare that the defendant, Sir H. M. Brownrigg,
was legally bound to prevent the piece of land in question from
continuing to be a public nuisance, and that the Attorney-General was
entitled to an injunction to enforce the performance by him of such duty.
Liberty for the Attorney-General to apply to the Judge for such an
injunction if necessary. The defendant to pay the costs of the action so
far as it was dismissed against the defendant without costs, and also to
pay the costs of the appeal.