find it is old English for a hawker or peddler) sent the carcasses of two pigs to a butcher in London. An inspector, with a sharp nose, took a look at them and found them so bad that he had the higgler charged with nuisance. The higgler, however, proved that he had sold the meat for dog meat and as the law is not solicitous about the health of the canine tribe, especially when they are not licensed, Crawley went free. "If the prisoner," said Willes, J., to the jury,

"did not mean that the meat should be sold as and for human food, nor sent it for that purpose, you may acquit him," which they did. Queen v. Crawley, 3 F. & F. 109. So the meat might be intended for wild beasts in a menagerie. the hyena for instance, who likes his food the better the more putrid it is, or it might be sold for manure. People v. Parker, 38 N. Y. 85.

But it seems that the intention of the seller always governs, and if the prisoner intended to sell the food for consumption by man the intent of the buyer to use it in another way would not help him. -Id.

NUISANCE- CONTAGIOUS DISEASES.

KING v. VANTANDILLO.

[4 M. & S. 73.]

Mrs. Vantandillo, carrying her child in her arms, walked down the street one afternoon. Every passerby who glanced at the child was suddenly seized with a liking for the middle of the street, notwithstanding the mud and the danger of being run over by vehicles. For the child had the small-pox, and such a bad case that one look was sufficient to satisfy the most shortsighted pedestrian. pedestrian. Later Mrs. Vantandillo was arrested for nuisance and convicted. "There can be no doubt in point of law," said LeBlanc, J., in passing judgment," that if a person, unlawfully, injuriously, and with full knowledge of the fact, exposes in a public highway a person infected with a contagious disorder, it is a common nuisance to all subjects and indictable as such."

Mr. Browne humorously observes that Mrs. Vantandillo's offense was putting a nuisance on foot. In a more strictly, legal, sense, it was endangering the public health. Before vaccination had become general, but yet while inoculation was in practice, a London surgeon had inoculated a number of children and while they were suffering from the disease, which, though mild in form was nevertheless infectious, he permitted them to be carried through the streets and to come in contact with other people. The surgeon was convicted of a nuisance, Dampier, J., saying: "The charge amounts to this: that the defendant after inoculating the children, unlawfully

exposed them while infected with the disease in the public street, to the danger of the public health." Rex v. Burnett, 4 M. & S. 272. And an infected or diseased person exposing himself would be guilty of the same offense. Glanders is a "horse" disease as we know from the lines of the dramatist:

Oh, you are? Then pray, sir, what is my complaint? Complaint? What shall I say? I wish he would returntis the the glanders."

"The glanders! Zounds! do you make a horse of me?"

But Mr. Dearsley, the English reporter, informs us that it may be communicated to man and cites a case where a whole family, consisting of a man, his wife and four children, died of glanders communicated to them by a horse which the man had purchased of a horse dealer. Under these circumstances, Mr. Henson's conviction was certainly just, although he was not the horse dealer just spoken of. However, Mr. Henson one July day brought a horse he had for sale to the market at Melton Mowbray. The horse had the "glanders," and Mr. Henson knew it, and being subsequently indicted for nuisance was found guilty. Reg v. Henson, Dears. 24.

A case which falls under this principle is State v. Buchanan, 8 N. H. 203. The defendant, having a spite against David Wilson, dropped some dead cats into his well, knowing very well that from this well Wilson's family got all the water which they drank and cooked with. After a few days the water commenced to be very foul, and in the end the Wilsons were made sick. The defendant was very properly convicted, the court making these remarks: "There can be no question but that the mixture of poisonous ingredients with the food or drink of another to such an extent as to impair the health of any individual receiving them, is punishable by indictment at common law, and water infected with the noxious particles and effluvia of a dead animal thrown into it, must partake of a character so poisonous and unwholesome as properly to come within this class of offenses." In Indiana, the same conclusion was reached in a case where the defendant had used a spring of water as a urinal. State v. Taylor, 29 Ind. 517.

So, where a mill-owner in Iowa, by damming up the water, caused it to overflow and become stagnant and marshy, whereby the air was corrupted, he was held guilty of a common nuisance. State v. Close, 35 Ia. 570.

And in like manner to endanger the public safety in ways other than by disease is a nuisance and indictable, as in an old case where

a man allowed his house standing by the highway to become so ruinous as to be likely to fall down and injure passers-by, it was held that he had committed a common nuisance. R. v. Wilson, 2 Strange, 1167.

NUISANCE - OFFENSES OF PERSONAL DE

PORTMENT.

GRISHAM v. STATE.

[2 Yerg. 589.]

John Grisham, yeoman, and Jane Legan, spinster, were indicted for " open and notorious lewdness." The proof was that they had been living together for some time without having called upon the preacher, or the Issuer of Marriage Licenses. As neither of them had ever been married, they could not, as we have seen,1 be indicted for adultery, and so they attempted to get off on the ground that if they had been "lewd" there had been nothing "open and notorious" about their

actions.

But the defense did not avail them. "Acts or conduct," ," said the court, "notoriously against public decency and good manners constitute an offense at common law. Now what is the gist of the prosecution. It is this, that the act or acts or particular conduct charged he notorious and against good manners, not that they should have been committed in the public streets or elsewhere exposed to the view of divers spectators. Such an exhibition as this is not necessary to satisfy the term notorious, and portray its character and import. The requisition of the term

1 Ante, p. 121.