“That 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.
“That if a party 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 relet, 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.
“And such purchaser is liable to be indicted for the continuing of the nuisance if the original reversioner would have been liable, though the purchaser has had no opportunity of putting an end to the tenant’s interest or abating the nuisance.”
The stopping of wholesome air is held to be a nuisance as well as the stopping of the light. Co. 9 Will., Aldred, 57. In the case of Lewes v. Keene, Trin. Term. Jac. Rex, it was held by the court—“that the light which cometh in by the windowes, being an essential part of the house, by which he hath three great commodities, that is to say, air for his health, light for his profit, prospect for his pleasure, may not be taken away no more than a part of his house may be pulled down, whereby to erect the next house adjoining. And with this resolution agreeth the case of Eldred, reported by Sir Edw. Coke, in his Ninth Report, fol. 58, where he showeth the ancient form of the action upon the case to be quod messuagium horrida tenebritate obscuratum facit; but if there be hinderance only of the prospect by the new erected house, and not of the air, not of the light, then an action of the case will not lye, insomuch that the prospect is only a matter of delight, and not of necessity.”
The corruption of the water is an offence at common law, and was early the subject of a statutory provision. In the earlier periods the power of the legislature was directly exercised for the abatement of nuisances. I am favoured by the following illustrations from a collection of records upon the subject made by Mr. T. D. Hardy, of the Record Office in the Tower:—
The first extract shows that sea-coal was in use in London much earlier than is commonly supposed:—
“Patent Roll, 16 Edw. 1.—The king to his beloved and faithful Thomas de Weylaund, John de Luvetot, John de Cobeham, and Ralph de Sandwico, custos of his city of London, greeting: From the complaint of many persons, we understand that many people are dangerously aggrieved by the furnaces of lime which are built in the said city and its suburbs, and in Southwark; because the lime which formerly used to be burnt with wood, is now burnt with sea coal, by which the air there is affected and corrupted, to the great danger of persons frequenting those parts and dwelling around them: we, therefore, being willing to afford a fitting remedy for this, have appointed you to see those furnaces, and remove the danger and nuisances which threaten from them in these days, and to order further concerning them according to your discretion, as you shall see most expedient for the common use and safety; and therefore we command you, that taking with you our sheriffs of London and our bailiffs of Southwark, you perform the premises with diligence. We have also commanded the same sheriffs and bailiffs that at a certain day, which you shall make known to them, they attend to this with you, in form aforesaid. Witness, Edmund Earl of Cornwall, at Westminster, on the 26th day of May.”
“A.D. 1290, 18 Edw. I.—The Carmelite Friars of London, the Friars-preachers, the Bishop of Salisbury, and others, petition Parliament to abate a nuisance (viz. a great stench) near them which they cannot endure, and which prevents them from performing their religious duties, and from which several of the monks had died. (Petit, in Parl. 18 Edw. I.)
“35 Edw. I.—The mayor of London is commanded to prevent persons from lighting furnaces near the Tower of London during the stay of the Queen and the nobles at the tower, because the air is corrupted and infection generated by the insalubrity of the air on account of the said furnaces. (Rot. claus. 35 Edw. I.)