Liability for acts of servants, &c., and others] For Highways, see

under that title.

A man may be guilty of a nuisance by the act of his agent or servant. Thus the directors of a gas company are liable for an act done by their superintendent and engineer, under a general authority to manage their works, though they are personally ignorant of the particular plan adopted, and though such plan be a departure from the method, which the directors had no reason to suppose discontinued. Medley, 1834.

So Stephens, 1866. But where the smoke of furnaces was not consumed, but defendant himself had by no means been guilty of negligence, the nuisance being due to the carelessness of a stoker, the court held that he was not criminally responsible for his servant's negligence, and explained Stephens, on the ground that it was a civil case, as the judges there, in effect, said. Chisholm v. Doulton, 22 Q. B. D. 736; 58 L. J. M. C. 133, 1889; cf. Coppen v. Moore.

Defendant had a shooting-ground at Bayswater, near the highway; visitors shot with rifles at a target, and also at pigeons; as the pigeons frequently escaped, persons collected outside and around to shoot at them as they strayed, causing noise and disturbance, and doing mischief by the shot. The K. B. held that the evidence supported the allegation that the defendant caused such persons to assemble, discharging fire-arms, &c., inasmuch as their so doing was a probable consequence of his keeping a shooting-ground in such a place. Moore, 3 B. & W. 184, 1832.

Tenants] If the owner of land erect a building which is a nuisance, or of which the occupation is likely to produce a nuisance, and let the land, he is liable to an indictment for such nuisance being continued or created during the term. So he is, if he let a building which requires particular care to prevent the occupation from being a nuisance, and the nuisance occur for want of such care on the part of the tenant. If one buy the reversion during a tenancy, and the tenant afterwards, during his term, erect a nuisance, the reversioner is not liable for it; but if such reversioner re-let, or having an opportunity to determine the tenancy, omit to do so, allowing the nuisance to continue, he is liable for such continuance: per Littledale J. The nuisance here has been a natural consequence of the erection,' per L. Denman C.J. It is the duty of a landlord to bind his tenants to cleanse or to let him in to do so, in default, per Taunton J., Pedly, 1 Ad. & E. 822, 1834.

Evidence] Indictment for an offensive trade; a conviction before justices for a previous offence at the same place is not admissible, as the former offence is not necessarily a nuisance. There was a difference of opinion whether it would have been admissible, even if the offence had been a nuisance. Fairie, 8 E. & B. 486, 1857. Maybury, 4 F. & F. 90, 1864.

See

Punishment abatement] The punishment is fine and (or) imprisonment; and the judgment of the court may be, that the defendant shall remove it at his own costs. Hawk. P. C. 1, 75, 14-15. But where the continuing of the nuisance is not averred, the judgment of abatement would not be proper. Stead, 8 T. R. 142, 1799; and so Justices of West Riding, 7 T. R. 467, 1798. And where the court is satisfied that the nuisance is effectually removed before judgment

is prayed, they will not give judgment to abate. Incledon, 13 East 127, 1810. The judgment, in fact, is adapted to the circumstances. When such judgment is given, it is only to remove or pull down so much of the thing as actually causes the nuisance; as, if a house be built too high, the judgment is to pull down only so much of it as is too high. And the like where there is a conviction for carrying on an offensive trade, or where the nuisance is temporary; the judgment is only to prevent the defendant from using the building again for the offensive purpose. Pappineau; see 9 Co. 54; Co. Entries, 92 b. Where defendant had entered into a recognisance to appear at the assizes and plead to an indictment for nuisance, and at the time of the assizes he was on the continent in ill-health, the nuisance having been abated, and the prosecutor being willing to consent to an acquittal, Patteson J. after conferring with Erskine J. in these circumstances, allowed a verdict of not guilty to be taken. Macmichael, 8 C. & P. 755, 1839.

Force, numbers, &c.] do not necessarily constitute riot; see that title.

Corporations] See under Jurisdiction.

OATHS AND COMBINATIONS, UNLAWFUL.

Common law] forbids any to be 'ministred' without authority, so sacred are they. 3 Inst. 165. Hence, if a meeting of licensing justices is preliminary and informal, the offence cannot take place. J. Shaw, 22 Cox C. C. 376; 27 T. L. R. 181; 75 J. P. 191; 104 L. T. 112; 6 Cr. A. R. 103, 1911: c. q.

Statutes] By s. 1 of 37 G. 3, 123: Any person or persons who shall, in any manner or form whatsoever, administer, or cause to be administered, or be aiding or assisting at, or present at and consenting to, the administering or taking of any oath or engagement, purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same, to engage in any mutinous or seditious purpose; or to disturb the publick peace; or to be of any association, society, or confederacy, formed for any such purpose; or to obey the order or commands of any committee or body of men not lawfully constituted; or of any leader or commander, or other person not having authority by law for that purpose; or not to inform or give evidence against any associate, confederate, or other person; or not to reveal or discover any unlawful combination or confederacy; or not to reveal or discover any illegal act done, or to be done; or not to reveal or discover any illegal oath or engagement, which may have been administered or tendered to or taken by such person or persons, or to or by any other person or persons, or the import of any such oath or engagement; shall, on conviction thereof by due course of law, be adjudged guilty of felony, and may be transported for any term of years not exceeding seven years; and every person who shall take any such oath or engagement not being compelled thereto,' is subject to the same punishment. In Marks, 3 East 157, 1802, the K. B. held a combination to raise wages (and for other trade union purposes) within this s.

By s. 2, coercion is no defence, unless the oath be revealed within four days; by s. 3, persons not present may be guilty; by s. 5, the formula is immaterial if there be anything in the nature of an oath.'

By 52 G. 3, 104, 1: 'Every person who shall in any manner or form whatsoever administer, or cause to be administered, or be aiding or assisting at the administering of, any oath or engagement, purporting or intending to bind the person taking the same to commit any treason, or murder, or any felony punishable by law with death, shall, on conviction thereof by due course of law, be adjudged guilty of felony . . . and every person who shall take any such oath or engagement, not being compelled thereto, shall, on conviction. be guilty of felony, and shall be transported as a felon for the term of his natural life, or for such term of years as the court shall adjudge.' The first lacuna here is due to 7 W. 4 & 1 V. 91, which abolished the death penalty.

The statutes are not confined to oaths administered with a seditious or mutinous intent. Marks, above; Ball, 6 C. & P. 563, 1834; Brodribb, ib. 571, 1816: poachers sworn to secrecy.

a

Unlawful Combinations.

901

Indictment] It is sufficient to aver that the oath was administered, not to give evidence against a member of an association formed to do 'certain illegal act, without setting out the act. Brodribb. Prosecution under 39 G. 3, 79, and 57 G. 3, 19, must be in the name of a law officer of the crown: 9-10 V. 33 (not in this respect affected by 32-3 V. 24, Sch. I. See Sch. II.). Registered friendly societies are practically excepted from these two statutes by 59-60 V. 25, 32. Partly on this ground the defendants in Luby v. Warwickshire Miners' Association, 1912, 2 Ch. 371, argued that they, a trade union, not being so excepted, were illegal societies within these two statutes; but Neville J. admitting that the branches and delegates of the unions came within the words, declined to regard mere membership as criminal, either (1) because the statutes are obsolete, or (2) other statutes dealing with unions are inconsistent with criminality, have, in fact, exonerated them from these statutes; he accepted (2).

The oath] 37 G. 3, 123, 5, was confirmed by 52 G. 3, 104, 6: 'any engagement or obligation whatsoever in the nature of an oath.'

In Moors, 1801, the object imputed was to disturb the public peace'; held not necessary to aver how the society intended to do so.

Evidence] Parol evidence may be given of the oath, though the administerer appeared to read it from a paper, to produce which no notice has been given. And where the oath is not on the face of it seditious, evidence of his declarations, at the time, is admissible to show that the brotherhood it referred to is a seditious society. Ib.

If the oath was not administered on the Testament, it is immaterial, if the swearer was intended to believe himself under a binding engagement. Brodribb; Lovelass, 1 Moo. & Rob. 349; 6 C. & P. 596, 1834: trade union. Under 37 G. 3, 123, 5, Williams B. said that the oath contemplated by the A. was not required to be of a formal nature,' but it was sufficient if it was intended to operate as an oath, and was so understood by the person taking it: Moo. & Rob.

Defence-disclosure] If the swearer took the oath in joke or was setting a trap, it is no defence if it was administered seriously: Eadon, 31 St. Tr. 1068, 1813: Luddite sworn on Book of Common Prayer. 52 G. 3, 104, 2, substitutes fourteen days for the four of 37 G. 3, 123, 2, where a commanding officer may receive the revelation of an offender under him.

Both the above statutes provide (ss. 7, 8, respectively), that any one who has once been tried under them, shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence or fact, as high treason or misprision'; but, if not so tried, they may be.

Unlawful combinations] Unlawful oaths have always been closely connected with unlawful combinations. See Conspiracy and Mutiny. By 39 G. 3, 79, 2, all societies, the members whereof are required to take unlawful oaths, &c. within the intent of 37 G. 3, 123, or any not required or authorised by law, or which has members whose names are kept secret from the general body, are declared unlawful combinations.

By s. 8, offenders may be summarily convicted, or on indictment; in the latter case they are liable to transportation for seven years, or to imprisonment for two.

By 57 G. 3, 19, 25, all societies demanding oaths, &c., within

37 G. 3, 123, or 52 G. 3, 104, or unauthorised oaths, and their members, are guilty of unlawful combination within 39 G. 3, 79, above.

In Dixon, 6 C. & P. 601, 1834: trade union, Bosanquet J. held that every person engaging in an association, the members of which necessarily take an unauthorised oath, is guilty within 57 G. 3, 19, 25. See Luby's case, above.

Administering, &c. voluntary oaths, &c.] By 5-6 W. 4, 62, 13: 'it shall not be lawful for any justice of the peace or other person to administer, or cause or allow to be administered, or to receive, or cause or allow to be received, any oath, affidavit, or solemn affirmation, touching any matter or thing whereof such justice or other person hath not jurisdiction or cognisance by some statute in force at the time being; provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to any oath, affidavit, or solemn affirmation, before any justice in any matter or thing touching the preservation of the peace, or the prosecution, trial, or punishment of offences, or touching any proceedings before either of the houses of parliament, or any committee thereof respectively, nor to any oath, affidavit, or affirmation which may be required by the laws of any foreign country to give validity to instruments in writing designed to be used in such foreign countries respectively.' See Nott, 1843: perhaps the offence is not indictable.

Not triable at Q. S.