REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. 105 



was built; * * * or, perhaps, if the remedy is inadequate — that is 

 to say, if there is imminent danger of irreparable mischief before the 

 tardiness of the law can afford relief — equity may interpose and abate 

 the nuisance upon the information of the Attorney-General." 



In the Am. & Eng. En. of Law, cited supra, it is stated that: "The 

 remedies for injuries or offenses of this character (nuisance and purpres- 

 tures) are by indictment; by proceedings at law known as an informa- 

 tion of intrusion, resulting in abatement; and also in proceedings in 

 equity for abatement and injunction on information of the Attorney- 

 General, and sometimes, but not usually or necessarily, at the relation 

 of a private person." 



Again, Story gives the law as follows (cited supra): "In regard to 

 public nuisances, the jurisdiction of courts of equity seems to be of a 

 very ancient date, and has been distinctly traced back to the reign of 

 Queen Elizabeth. The jurisprudence is applicable not only to public 

 nuisances, strictly so called, but also to purprestures upon public rights 

 and property. * * * Xn cases of public nuisances, properly so 

 called, an indictment lies to abate them, and to punish the offenders. 

 But an information also lies in equity to redress the grievance by way of 

 injunction.'''' * * * [The italics are by us.] "The ground of this 

 jurisdiction by courts of equity in case of purpresture as well as of 

 public nuisances, undoubtedly is their ability to give a more complete 

 and perfect remedy than is attainable at law, in order to prevent irrep- 

 arable mischief, and also to suppress oppressive and vexatious litiga- 

 tions. In the first place, they can interpose where the courts of law 

 cannot to restrain and prevent such nuisances which are threatened or in 

 progress, as well as to abate those already existing. In the next place, 

 by a perpetual injunction, the remedy is made complete through all 

 future time; whereas, an information or indictment at the common law 

 can only dispose of the present nuisance; and for future acts new prose- 

 cutions must be brought. In the next place, the remedial justice in 

 equity may be prompt and immediate, before irreparable mischief is 

 done; whereas, at law nothing can be done, except after a trial and upon 

 the award of judgment. In the next place, a court of equity will not 

 only interfere upon the information of the Attorney-General, but also 

 upon the application of private parties directly aiffected l)y the nuisance." 



In such a case as this the two jurisdictions do not conflict. The law 

 side of the court may be invoked in cases of past transgressions of the 

 public's rights; the equity side exercises its jurisdiction to prevent 

 future transgressions. Upon the law side of the court, an action will 

 not lie until the injury is done. Equity will interpose to prevent the 

 injury — the jurisdiction of the one operates upon past actions; the 

 jurisdiction of the other extends over future actions. 



The complaint in this action show? that respondent is placing refuse 

 8— F 



