New-York tribune., 1879-08-29

WHFRE TO BUILD SNALL-POX HOSPIIALS
The latest publication of the Queens Bench
decisions mentions case interesting 10 health
officers and householders everywhere. 1t seems
that various Acts of Parliament, and particu-
larry one passed III 1867, IN order to make
better provision for the treatment OF con-
tagious diseases in the vast metropolis
of London and its suburbs, formed the
territory into "asylum districts" and created
FOR each district body named the
managers of the Asylum" These managers
were charged with the duty Of erecting and
conducting. III their respective districts, such
hospitals for contagious diseases a the " local
government boards" should from time to time
authorize In other words, each local govern
ment board (Which Is q body having general
municipal authority over its appointed Ill
vision of territory, was TO appoint the site
and decide the plan Of hospital for the asy-
um district. and then the managers were to
carry the order of the board into effect, by
acquiring the land erecting building and
ftting it up, receiving patients and employ
ing physicians and nurses.
At Hampstead, the managers, authorized by
the board, established a smallpox hospital
Neighboring hOuseholders soon complained OF
the influence of this establishment upon the
sanitary condition of the immediate vicinity !;
and at length Sir Rowland Hill and two other
gentlemen, whose residences Immediately ad-
joined the hospital grounds, united IN bring
ing an action TO have the hospital adjudgcd a
nuisance and the managers condemned to pay
damages for establishing 1t, and forbidden
to continue it any longer. Witnesses contra
dicted each other whether the hospital was
carefully and prudenty planned or notj
but upon this point the opinion OF the jury
was in Sir Rowland Hills favor that al
though it was well managed inside, yet the
bringing of smallpox patients in ambulances
to its doors, and other evils incident to the
establishment, rendered 1t a nuisance TO the
neighbors The principal ground of defence
on the part of the managers was that they
were acting in obedience to an Act OF Parlla-
ment and under authority and orders of the
Local Government Board, and hence were not
personally liable.
The Court, however, adjudged the case in
favor of the complaining neighbors. 1t said
that if the Act Of Parliament had designated
the site for the hospital, and directed 1t TO be
built and conducted in the manner adopted,
the responsibility wOuld have been upon Par
lament, and the managers could not have been
sued for the doctrine of the law Is that
when the Legislature authorizes a distinct
thing to be done, the officers who do it can
not DO personally charged with wrong
in their acts. If, for example, the Leg
isature enacts that railroad may be
built along certain route, persons living
near it and annoyed by smoke, dust or noise
from the trains, cannot sue the directors for
damages. But III this case the location OF the
hospital and mode of erecting and conducting
it were left TO the discretion of the officers.
These were bound to select a site and adopt
plan such that the hospital would not be a
nuisance to the neighborhOOd /; and for failing
in this they were liable to the action.