View report page

78
nuisance, and that the evidence proved a continuation rather
than a recrudescence of the nuisance.
7. I was, however, of opinion, and found as a fact, that
the nuisance of April 9th was a recrudescence and not a
continuance of the nuisance which the notice of November
5th, 1910, required the Respondents to abate, and I held and
determined that the Respondents had not made default in
complying with the requisitions of the notice, I therefore
dismissed the said information.
The question upon which the opinion of the Court is
respectfully desired is whether I, the said Magistrate, upon
the above statement of facts, came to a correct determination
and decision in point of law; and, if not, what should be done
in the premises.
Dated this 4th day of January, One thousand nine
hundred and twelve, at the Tower Bridge Police Court.
John Rose,
One of the Magistrates of the
Police Courts of the Metropolis.
Lord Alverstone, C.J., in his decision, as reported in the
Justice of the Peace, said that "On November 6th, 1910,
the Appellants served a notice on the London County Council
in respect of emission of black smoke from a chimney in such
quantities as to be a nuisance, and requiring them, within
three days, to abate the nuisance, and to execute such works
as would be necessary for preventing the recurrence of such
nuisance. If the case on behalf of the Appellants had been
that the works had not been done which ought to have been
done, and that they were works which could be done, then I
think Mr. Turner would be in a very strong position. I think
it is quite possible that there might be a summons in respect of
works not properly executed even though they have not been
specified, as in this case they are not; but there is no evidence
before us to show that there was anything to be done so far as