POLICE POWER 39 



stream might not be perceptibly injured by the 

 sewage of the village, that of the city might be 

 dangerous. This matter is more fully discussed 

 in my work on The Legal Peinciples of Public 

 Health Administeation, § § 440 and following, to 

 which reader is referred. 



The particular point interesting to stock han- 

 dlers in this regard is the danger to a stream nin- 

 ning through a pasture. The chemicals used in 

 a factory may render the stream useless for the 

 watering of the stock, or even dangerous. This is 

 a special damage to the owner of the pasture land, 

 and he has a right of individual action, independ- 

 ent of any criminal prosecution, or other steps 

 taken by the governmental authorities. What the 

 property owner desires is the abatement of the 

 nuisance. A suit for damages might very likely 

 not accomplish the abatement, and repeated suits 

 would thus be brought, for the limit of damages 

 is that which can be shown to have occurred. The 

 proper action here is an application for an injunc- 

 tion, after which an action in damages may or may 

 not be advisable.^*^ (See also § 106.) 



24. Authority for Abatement, Not for Construc- 

 tion. Unless the power be distinctly given, the 

 authority conferred upon an officer or department 

 to abate a nuisance does not carry with it the 

 authority to direct any special style of constmc- 

 tion. Thus, authority to abate a nuisance at the 

 expense of the owner does not empower the board 

 of health to require a new building, more in accord 



30 Bernard v. Willamette Box pendent Light & Water Co., 74 

 & Lumber Co., 64 Ore. 223, 129 Wash. 373, 133 Pac, 592. 

 Pac. 1039; Lavner v. Inde- 



