40 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



with the advanced ideas in sanitary construction.''^ 

 Neither does it empower the board to direct 

 changes of such a scale as to bring it within the 

 definition of public works, and assess it upon the 

 property."^ The object sought is the abatement, 

 and the jJi'operty owner is obliged to abate, but 

 he is not obliged to abate in the specific manner 

 directed by the executive, unless that specific 

 authority was given. •^■'^ 



Even where the authority to direct construc- 

 tion may have been given and exercised, where 

 plans have been approved by the departmental 

 engineer, this does not justify the continuance of 

 a nuisance. The engineer may have made an error 

 in his computation; or he may have gone at his 

 work blindly, and without sufficient knowledge of 

 the subject; or he may have been influenced in his 

 judgment. After approval of the plans by the 

 state board of health it was found that when the 

 Collingsworth Sewerage Works were put in opera- 

 tion, as an actual fact, a nuisance was committed. 

 The court said that no matter hew expensive the 

 works may have been, or how unprofitable the 

 enterprise might be, neither element was sufficient 

 to absolve the company from maintaining a nui- 

 sance, due to faulty construction of the plant, or 

 to negligence in its operation.'^^ 



81 Eekhardt v. Buffalo, 15G 3- Dm-gin v. Minot, 203 :\]ass. 



N. Y. 658. 26, 89 N. E. 1-14. 



32Haag V. City of Mt. Ver- 34 State v. Collingsworth 



non, 58 N. Y. S. 585, 41 App. Sewerage Co., 85 N. J. L. 567, 



Div. 366. 89 Atl. 525, 



