The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1881-09-10
AN INTERESTING DECISION.


In June last the Court Of Appeals rendered n
decision In the case Of William T. wOodycar vs..
Henry sehaefer involving the question Of legal
responsibility for nuisanees. The principle in.
VOWED in the are 80 important, and the deci-
sion effects so many large business interests that
We have thought Il well TO give our readers the
leading points Of the case.
The complainant In the ease. WIN. +. Woody year.
was the owner u haur mill In baltimore city.
situated Gwynn's Falls, below is junction with
Gwynn's run, which he had owned or operated
since 1872 and which was the successor Of q mill
that had been located ON the same site and operat-
Cd for over fifty years. The defendant was u
butcher, having a slaughter house on Gwynn's
Hun, in Baltimore county, about mile above the
mill. The complainant fled bill against Schaef-
or, asking for an injunction TO restrain nuisance
on the ground that the blood and DIAL from the
defendants slaughter house were cast into the run
aud had so polluted the stream and the mill race
a. to create an intoerable stencil In the vicinity
of the mill, and 10 deprive the owner Of the COM
Portable reasonable enjoyment OF the property
The answer admitted the impure condition Of the
stream, but denied that any offensive matter was
thrown int Il By the defendant. and ayeEEel that
the only matter allowed by him 10 now into IL was
bccf's blood, in quantatics not exceeding iItocn
buckets per week. The defendant further alleged
that on Gwynn's Falls and the Run there
factories and other establishments which had used
these streams for sewer-ways for twenty or thirty
years, and that the refuse from all Of these had
contributed to the nuisance. The testimony showed
tho condition Of the stream and mill race TO DO
fully rs offensive as charged in the BILL and that
while the defendant contributed TO that condition,
the other establishments referred TO In his answer
were also largely responsible. Upon this state Of
facts the Court Of Appeals decided that the COM
plainant entitled 20 the injunction prayed for.
Apart frum the prcscrptiye right OF the millowner
a. the use Of the stream, which no prescription TO
use IL for u sewcr.way could coun;eryaii the court
held that the wrong complained Of amounted to a
public nuisance, for which there can be no pre-
scription. 1.-THE right Of u riparian owner" says
the court, "to have the water OF the stream come
90 him in its natural purity, or 10 the condition
In which he has been in the habit Of using II for
domestic or business purposes, Is rs well recog-
niscd the right TO have II how to his land in it,
usual quantity. The extent tho court continues.
"to which the appellee has contributed 20 the nui-
sanco may be slight and scarcely appreeiable
standing alone, but IL Is when all the sources Of
| nuisance are united together and contribute 10 n
common result that they become important rs fac
tors in producing the mischief complained Of"
The court further says: "The right to pure air
l. held o. be a natural right, and a. incident 10
the enjoyment Of land. Its sensible pollution by
the exercise Of noxious trade whereby the COM
Portable enjoyment Of property l. diminished, is a
I
ways. when the state &c the facts applies, give
lief. and such injury Is not fairly and reasona.
bly, incident 20 the ordinary use Of property. aud
renders surrounding property physically uneom'
| Portable, will be restrained. Aud the remedy In
equity 90 prevent n nuisance is generally said "a
| exist whenever the nature Of the injury Is such
that Il cannot be adequately compensated by dam
ages, will occasion constantly recurring gricy
anee. An injunction IL the only eIectual remedy
to stop the injury. Especially is this the case
where the injury Is caused by so many that il
would be difficult To appor,on the damage or say
| how far may have contributed 10 the result
| and so damages would likely be but normal, and
| repeated actions without any substantial benefit
| might be the result
Slaughter houses are considered by text writer,
of authority 90 be prima facic nuisance. aud IL has
been held that blood running into y stream cons,i
tutcs a nuisance that will be restrained. II has
also been held that IL Is not necessary that pub
lie nuisance should be injurious 10 health; IL there
| be smells offensive e. the senses, that IL enough
a. the neishborhood has right TO fresh and pure
| air. The presence. or other nuisanccs will moi
| justify any one Of them; zone IL not 10 be les'
subject 90 prosecution because Others cupable.
The Cour; Of Appeals in granting the injunction
| prayed against Schacicr added that the complain
ant would be cniitlcd 10 the relief against al
the parties contributing 10 the injury. at la,
| been urged" the decision continues, that to re
strain the appellee and Others engaged in the SAINT
| "SN"F"''u" h"s" "''uS '"o "eNS Complains" - w"
prove runoas 20 their business and destructive q
a vast amount Of capital invested in the business
But We 10 not think the apprehension IL wei
founded. Experience and the necessity Of the
ease have elsewhere applied the remedy In man
ncr entirely satisfactory to those engaged in the
business and TO the great relief Of the public. be
sides converting into matter Of revenue the re
fuse and DIAL before constituting an intolcrabls
| nuisance" The appellee and others situated like
him. the court concludes, must learn to act upon
the maxim Of so using their own property rs mol
| 90 injurc that Of others.