TIGHTNESS Y. TYPHUS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 524, 3 May 1872, Page 2

TIGHTNESS Y. TYPHUS.

—o— Referring to the peculiar distinction made between nuisances caused by drink and stink, the writer of “Casual Notes” in the Otaijo Dally Tim?s says:— Pursuing this subject a step farther I may remark that the principal on which persons convicted of nuisances are punished appears to be, to say the least, slightly peculiar. It a man gets helplessly and therefore harmlessly drunk in the streets he is fined ten shillings or a pound. If a man allows a nuisance on his premises to the great discomfort and risk of his neighbors and passers-by, he is fined a paltry half-crown or five shillings. Nay in many instances we read in the newspaper reports of such cases that “the case was dismissed, the nuisance having been removed.” Why such leniency. If a man steals a watch and is caught, is he let off if he gives up the stolen article? If a man shoots at another and misses him, is he let oft" because his victim has received no injury? Of course not yet a man who allows a nusicuca cn his premises has been equally blameworthy, for it is no thanks to him that his neighbors have not been poisoned. The offence has been committed even though injurious results may not follow. The offence moreover is a very grave one, fpr as Professor Huxley said on a recent occasion, “if my next doorncighborchooses to havehis drains in such a state as to create a poisonous atmosphere, which I breathe at the risk of typhus or diphtheria, it is just as much a restriction on my freedom to live as it my life werethreatened with a pistol, IftheMayor andaCouncillor or two were to die of diseases fostered by the leniency with which these offences are punished, wo should doubtless see an improvement in the direction of salutary rigor. Till that consummation is arrived at; however, any one may poison his neighbors for a few shillings.