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 Lucan Princrptes or Pusuic 
Heatta Apministration, §§ 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 run- 
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.2° (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 construc- 
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- 
