The New York herald., 1872-07-07
BROOKLYN COURTS.
SUPREME C0uaI-sPsCIAl TERM.
The Dead Animal Nuisance-The Court
Breaking UP Clark's Rendering Fac
tory-An Important Decision.


Breaking UP Clarl<'s Rendering Fac
tOry-An Important Decision.
Before Judge Gilbert.
In the Matter Of Thomas @. Smith vs. Edward G.
Ciark.-The defendant Is the city contractor for
removing dead animals beyond the city limits This
was an application for injunction to restrain
him from continuing his business OF boiling down
and rendering the dead animals, which he carries
on In the Seventeenth ward on NewtOwn Creek.
This is within the city limits. temporary injunc-
tion granted by Judge Gilbert who also granted
an order requiring the defenda4t to show cause
why 1t should not be continued.
The case was fully arguel, and yesterday Judge
Gilbert rendered a dec sion declaring the place
nuisance, and directing the defendant to break up
his business and remove elsewhere. In the course
ohis decision the Judge ys.--"On the return day
OF the order to show caus. IL came bc!o e Justice
TapDen, and he made an order ieerring the mat
t,f to referee to take testimony. Upon that tes-
timony, which Is very voluminous, twenty-five
witnesses being examined on the part of the plum
tln, and nine on the rt OF the dee endant the facts
leave no doubt In my mind tnat this IL not only
nuisance, but one O. the most offensive ana nOxiOus
character, producing most nauseous sten Gil, ,preu-
dcial to TIE public health which Is disseminated
throughout an area with a radius OF from
thre quarters OF mile TO q mile and a
hal. The law Is too clear to admit OF any ques-
ti0n or required TO be sustained by any citation
OF authorities. 1DasInuch as the nuisance Is
PUBLIC NUISANCE
u
OF any individual WHO suffers private or personal
injury from 1t, and 1t can also be indicted as
public nuisance and the party maintaining 1t is
liable In damages 10 any person sustaining injury
in his healtl, comfort business, In any other
way. In all respects 1t is an evil for which courts
OF equity from time immemoriai have afforded a
remedy by means ~ an Injunction. Ii is said IL is
necessary that these animals, dying in the streets,
should be promptly removed, and that II this place
IL not allowed TO be continued greater evil will
exist in allowing them to remain in the streets and
hence that public necessity requires that no inn
Iltsn I'm tntur
method he may adopt In executing his contract in
removing these dead animals.
Judge Gilbert oontinued-NOw, the answer TO
that IL, In the first place. that we have right to-
continue pubic nuisance or TO allow IL because 10
Is necessary In order to abate nee elsewhere.
In the second lace, there IL abundant power vested
by law in the public authorities the CITY to cause
these animals to be removed without causing this
public nasahce or al0 wing any nu sance within the
city limits The powers OF the Common Council
and the Board OF Health are ample. They have
power In the iirst place, to pass general regula-
tiOns for The removal OF these dead animals; in the
second place, to reqire the owners OF the anima,s
to remove them within twenty-four hours, under
VERY SEVERE PENALTY;
and In the tn ri Llace they can call on the police in
the owner Omits to remove them and cause
them to be removed at once at their expense, or
they may appoint Their own agents and officers to
do it, and the public are liable Tor the expense. 1he
powers or the Boaru Of Health are plenay and am
pie, and there is no necessity whatever Tor allow.
Ing a rendering establishment "a an auxiliary to
the business OF removing dead animais from the
streets.
The Judge says further that in this case the Com
mon Council made a contract with the defendant
whereby he was required TO remove these dead
animals beyond the city limits. That contract
might be enforced, and II he were unable To per-
form 1t, or wiliuy refused TO do So IL would be the
duty OF the Board OF Health To take proper meas
urss TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC
against any nuisance whatever arising from allow
Ing these dead animals to remain in the streets,
and IL would be proper elemen mt OF damages ~ an
action against the contractor Ioi breach Of con-
tract. Ihc question seems 10 arise between DIFF
"A In WI hot bnr a
nuisance shall be abated In portion OF the CON-
munity where IL Will necessarily ARISE Ia another