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.?2. The object sought is the abatement, 
and the property 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 how 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.** 
31 Eckhardt v. Buffalo, 156 33 Durgin v. Minot, 203 Mass. 
N. ¥. 658. 26, 89 N. E. 144. 
32 Haag v. City of Mt. Ver- 34State v.  Collingsworth 
non, 58 N. Y. 8. 585, 41 App. Sewerage Co., 85 N. J. L. 567, 
Div. 366, 89 Atl. 525, 
