REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. 103 



In other words, an act may constitute a nuisance, though not specifically 

 defined to be such by the Code. 



Following are some general definitions of nuisance: 



" Nuisance, nocumentum, or annoyance, signifies anything that worketh 

 hurt, inconvenience, or damage; and nuisances are of two kinds: public, 

 or common nuisances, which affect the public, and are an annoyance to 

 all the King's subjects." * * * (Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 

 III, star page 216.) 



" The term in legal phraseology is applied to that class of wrongs that 

 arise from the unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person 

 of his own property, real or personal, or from his own improper conduct, 

 working an obstruction of or injury to the right of another or of the 

 public, and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, discom- 

 fort, or hurt, that the law will presume a consequent damage." (Am. & 

 Eng. En. of Law, Vol. 16, p. 924.) 



Indeed, so numerous are the acts which might, under certain circum- 

 st'ances, constitute a nuisance, that it would be impossible for the statute 

 . to enumerate the same. 



In the Am. & Eng. En. of Law (Vol. 16, p. 943), it is said " the variety 

 of things, acts, and omissions which may constitute a nuisance is so 

 great as to render an enumeration impossible; no particular combination 

 of sources of annoyance being necessary to constitute a nuisance, and 

 the possible sources of annoyances not being exhaustively defined by 

 any rule of law." 



Mr, Wood, in his work, aptly states the case, viz.: 



" The question is not whether an act has been declared to be, but does 

 it come within the idea of, a nuisance? If so, it is a nuisance, though 

 never before held so; if not, it is not a nuisance, though held so in a 

 thousand instances before." (Wood on Nuisances (3d ed.), Vol. I, 

 Section 27.) 



Counsel lay great stress upon the fact that there is a difference between 

 navigable and unnavigable streams. We do not see that it makes any 

 difference to the determination of this case. 



If a dam or other obstruction should be placed in a stream, preventing 

 fish from going up the stream, it would be a nuisance to the public. 

 Why? Because it would prevent the fish from going to their spawning- 

 grounds, and eventually exterminate them; because it would be depriving 

 others of their property rights — the rights appendent to their lands — the 

 fisheries thereon. It would deprive the riparian owner of his right to 

 acquire property. Precisely the same principle is involved in this case. 

 The result of respondent's acts is the total destruction of all fish in the 

 stream below its mill, if not in the entire stream. This directly affects 

 the public and deprives all persons on the stream below it of a vested 

 property right. 



