-360 IMPOUNDING ; INJURIES ON HIGHWAYS, ETC. 



The subject of killing troublesome dogs has been 

 already considered. ^''^' With regard to noisy dogs, it was 

 said in a leading case, already frequently cited : "Whether 

 dogs kept on the premises of their owner may by their 

 noise become nuisances to adjoining proprietors and subject 

 their owner to action for a nuisance seems to be an open 

 question. An elementary writer says they cannot (i Mil- 

 liard on Torts, 2d ed. 644), on the authority of Street z\ 

 Tugwell [2 Selw. N. P. 1070] where an action was brought 

 for keeping a kennel of pointers so near to the plaintiff's dwell- 

 ing-house as to disturb his family during the daytime and pre- 

 vent them from sleeping in the night, and there was a verdict 

 for the defendant. But that case has been doubted. It has 

 been remarked that Lord Kenyon in refusing a new trial in- 

 timated that if the nuisance was continued a new action could 

 be brought, which was an intimation that an action could be 

 maintained; and Judge Nelson in Brill v. Flagler . . . [23 

 Wend. (N. Y.), 354] plainly intimates that the decision is not 

 a correct exposition of the law. And if the noise of a boiler 

 manufactory ... or a steam engine . . . maybe a nuisance, 

 a fortiori should a kennel of pointers who disturb the sleep of 

 -a family be, for undisturbed sleep is not merely a comfort, 

 it is absolutely necessary to health." ^eo Sq, the keeping of 

 roosters and hens may become a nuisance.^"'' But where an 

 ordinance declared it a nuisance for one to "keep" within the 

 city, for the purpose of feeding for the market, more than 

 fifty chickens, it was held that a dealer who on Saturday 

 took in a large number of chickens and retained them in a 

 railroad building occupied by him, near which ran a sidetrack, 

 and shipped them on Monday, having fed them in the mean- 

 time, — did not violate the ordinance, its purpose being "to 

 prevent the gathering and continued feeding of fowls in prep- 



'"= See §§ 43, 46, supra. '""' Woolf v. Chalker, 31 Conn. 121. 



==' Ireland v. Smith, 3 Sc. L. T. Rep. 180. And see the unreported case 

 ■of Desmond v. Smith (Me. Co. Ct.), referred to in 9 Green Bag S5o. See, 

 also, 41 Sol. Jour. 167. 



