Nuisance - 1800- 1849

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Rex -v- Bell (1822) 1 LJKB (OS) 42
1822	Nuisance	Casemap 1 Citers
	"that which is not a nuisance at the time it is done, cannot become so by length of time"

The Earl of Lonsdale -v- Nelson And Others [1823] EngR 745; (1823) 2 B & C 302; (1823) 107 ER 396
14 Nov 1823 Best J	Torts - Other, Nuisance	Casemap 1 Citers
	Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's manor. Pleas, first, general issue; second, that from time immemorial there hath been and still is a public port partfy within the said manor, and also in a river which has been a public navigable river from time immemorial, and that there is in that part of the port which is within the manor, an ancient work necessary for the preservation of the port, and for the safety and convenience of the ships resorting to it ; that this work was, at the several times when, &c. in decay; that plaintiff would not repair it, but neglected so to do, wherefore defendants entered and repaired. Replication, de injuria. Verdict for plaintiff on first plea, and for defendants on the second: Held, that plaintiff was entitled to judgment non obstante veredicto, as the second plea did not state that immediate repairs were necessary, or that any one bound to do so had neglected to repair after notice, or that a reasonable time for repairing had elapsed, or that defendants had occasion to use the port. Best J said: Nuisances by an act of commission are committed in defiance of those whom such nuisances injure, and the injured party may abate them without notice to the person who committed them, but there is no decided case which sanctions the abatement by an individual of nuisances from omission, except that of cutting the branches of trees which overhang a public road or the private property of the person who cuts them."
	Link[s] omitted

Rex -v- The Commissioners of Sewers for the Levels of Pagham (1828) 8 B & C 355
1828 Lord Tenterden CJ	Nuisance	Casemap
	The court considered responsibility for the inroads of the sea. The Commissioners erected groynes and other works to defend the stretch of coast for which they were responsible against the sea's encroachment. But the consequence was that the sea flowed with greater force upon adjoining land, whose owner brought proceedings. Held: "I am… of opinion that the only safe rule to lay down is this, that each land-owner for himself, or the commissioners acting for several land-owners, may erect such defences for the land under their care as the necessity of the case requires, leaving it to others, in like manner, to protect themselves against the common enemy."

Rex -v- Trafford (1831) 1 B & Ad 874
1831 KBD Lord Tenterden	Nuisance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The river Mersey and an associated brook overflowed their banks in wet weather at the place in question, and the waters went north and west over adjoining lands, at length flowing back into the Mersey. The affected landowners raised banks (referred to as "fenders") to confine the flood waters to the river and the brook. A canal, carried over the Mersey on an aqueduct, was constructed by authority of Parliament. The aqueduct had three arches taking the canal across the land where the flood waters naturally went. Thereafter the flow of water in the Mersey was increased by improved drainage higher up the river. So the landowners raised the height of their fenders. This pushed up the height of the flood water so as to endanger the canal and its aqueduct. The canal owners prosecuted the landowners on indictment for a nuisance. The jury delivered a very complicated special verdict which, under the procedure of the time, was then referred to the Court of King's Bench. Held: In favour of the prosecutor: "Now, it has long been established, that the ordinary course of water cannot be lawfully changed or obstructed for the benefit of one class of persons, to the injury of another. Unless, therefore, a sound distinction can be made between the ordinary course of water flowing in a bounded channel at all usual seasons, and the extraordinary course which its superabundant quantity has been accustomed to take at particular seasons, the creation and continuance of these fenders cannot be justified."

Trafford -v- Rex (1832) 8 Bing 204
1832 CEC Tindal CJ	Nuisance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Landowners next to the Mersey had raised the banks to prevent floodwaters coming on to their land. This raised the water level threatening a canal. The landowners appealed a conviction. Held: A guilty verdict of guilty would only be sustainable if (among other things): "… the course which the flood water is stated in the special verdict to have taken, and by which it was carried again into the river at a lower point, was the ancient and rightful course for it to take." The Exchequer Chamber held that this was not shown with sufficient clarity, and they ordered a venire de novo.

Elliotson -v- Feetham And Another [1835] EngR 798; (1835) 2 Bing NC 134; (1835) 132 ER 53
10 Jun 1835	Nuisance	Casemap 1 Citers
	The plaintiff complained of nuisance from smoke and noise generated by the defendant in adjacent workshops used for the making of iron. The defendant pleaded that he had been in occupation of his workshops for ten years before the plaintiff acquired his interest in the property he occupied, and had always in that period generated the smoke and noise of which complaint was made. Held: Judgment for the plaintiff. The defence could not succeed without pleading and proving that the smoke and noise had been generated for twenty years.
	Link[s] omitted

Rich -v- Basterfield [1847] 4 CB 783
1847	Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance	Casemap 1 Citers
	A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: "If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to become a nuisance, and it is entirely at the option of the tenants so to use them or not, and the landlord receives the same benefit whether they are used or not, the landlord cannot be made responsible for the acts of the tenants."

Smith -v- Kenrick [1849] 7 CB 515; [1849] LJCP 172; [1849] 12 LTOS 556; [1849] 13 Jur 362; [1849] 137 ER 205
1849 CCP Cresswell J	Nuisance	Casemap
	Where there are two minings working adjacent land, each has the right to work his own mine, and to construct shafts in his own mine in whatever way he thinks fit, and even if this results naturally in damage to the neighbour's mine, provided he is neither malicious nor negligent. Water had flowed from the defendant's mine into the plaintiff's mine. The defendant had merely dug holes in the ordinary course of mining and the water flowed into the other mine by gravitation. He was not liable. Cresswell J said: "it would seem to be the natural right of each of the owners of two adjoining coal-mines . . to work his own in the manner most convenient and beneficial to himself, although the natural consequence may be that some prejudice will accrue to the owner of the adjoining mine, so long as that does not arise from the neglect or malicious conduct of the party."