358 IMPOUNDING ; INJURIES ON HIGH^VAYS, ETC. 



by-law prohibiting the keeping of swine within fifty feet of 

 any dwelling-house has been held unreasonable and therefore 

 void.^^^ An ordinance prohibiting the keeping of cows 

 within two hundred feet of any dwelling without a "special 

 permit" from the board of health, was held invalid as an at- 

 tempt by the board to Hcense such keeping not sanctioned by 

 the statute.25^ 



A stable for horses is a nuisance if used in such a way that 

 the noises and odors arising therefrom are an annoyance to 

 the neighborhood.^^* And this is so, though it may be con- 

 structed with all modern improvements f^^ and though it may 

 formerly have caused no annoyance. ^^^ But the lessor of a 

 stable, so constructed as with proper care not to cause dis- 

 comfort to persons of ordinary sensibility, is not liable for the 

 improper use of the stable by the tenant or his employees.^^^ 

 And an ordinance prohibiting the location of a livery-stable 

 in or opposite to any block in which is a school building, 

 without reference to the manner of construction or use or any 



^°^ Heap V. Burnley Union, 12 Q. B. D. 617. 



A by-law prohibiting the keeping of a cow at a less distance than forty 

 feet from a dwelling-hovise was held reasonable in McKnight v. Toronto, 

 supra. 



'» Flushing V. Carraher, 87 Hun (N. Y.) 63. 



As to the power to make regulations concerning the ventilation of cow- 

 sheds, see Baker v. Wilhams, [1898] i Q. B. 23. 



™ Rapier v. London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 588; Broder v. Sail- 

 lard, 2 Ch. D. 692; Kaspar v. Dawson (Conn.), 42 Atl. Rep. 78: Filson 

 V. Crawford, 5 N. Y. Suppt. 882; Robinson v. Smith, 7 id. 38; Dargan v. 

 Waddill, 9 Ired. L. (N. C.) 244; Gififord v. Hulett, 62 Vt. 342. And see 

 38 L. R. A. 653 n. As to the measure of damages, see Gempp v. Bassham, 

 60 111. 84. 



The prohibition of a stable for more than four horses unless licensed by 

 the board of health is not unconstitutional: Newton v. Joyce, 166 Mass. 

 83. See also Phillips v. Denver, 19 Colo. 179, cited in § 107, infra. 



™ Drysdale v. Dugas, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 20. But see Forget v. Laver- 

 dure, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 9 C. S. 98. 



'" Ball V. Ray, 8 Ch. App. 467. 



'" Metropolitan Sav. Bk. v. Manion, 87 Md. 68. 



Notice to the defendant not to put in windows in the side of his stable 

 opposite the plaintiff's dwelling will not affect the former's liability: Ibid. 



