View report page

80
or occupied by them, or any of them. It had been alleged, on
behalf of the plaintiffs, that the erection of a small-pox hospital of
the size of that at Darenth was certain to occasion danger of
small-pox in the neighbourhood, and that such danger had been
occasioned; also that that danger amounted to an actionable
nuisance, and the plaintiffs therefore applied to the Court to have
the continuance of that nuisance restrained. Mr. Justice Pearson
in giving judgment said that he should follow the ruling of Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn, who, in reference to the Hampstead case,
said the jury must determine "whether the presence of the hospital
created a real danger to health with reference to the adjacent
properties owned by the plaintiffs in that action," and the question
therefore which he had to decide was "whether the healthiness of
the plaintiffs' property had been appreciably diminished by the
placing in the vicinity of it the camp hospital with all its patients?''
Evidence in regard to the hospitals in London was placed before
the Court by the plaintiffs, but, as the Judge observed, "the
difference between the cases was so great that the only use of
the evidence was to enable one, by finding what facts had been
proved with regard to those hospitals, to see whether the facts
could be applied, and to what extent they ought to be applied, to
the case brought before the Court for adjudication." His Lordship
said he was unable to come to the conclusion that "not only was it
possible that the poison of small-pox might be conveyed through
the air, but that it was so probable that it would be conveyed through
the air, for a distance from the camp to the plaintiffs' property,"
that he must decide that "the situation of the camp where
it was was an appreciable cause of unhealthiness to the plaintiffs'
property." As regarded similarity of position there was "no parallel
at all between the London hospitals and the Convalescent Hospital
at Darenth; the same conclusions, therefore, that were drawn
from the existence of the hospitals in London could not be drawn
from the existence of the Camp at Darenth." The plaintiff, who
was "bound to prove his case" to the Judge, had "failed to prove
his case; it was not proved that there was any danger whatever from
this hospital to Mr. Fleet or his property," and therefore his Lord-