View of any other animal." The Court held that the

master was liable to a penalty for the act of his slaughter-

man, though the act was done in direct disobedience to his

orders. Wills, J., said ; " It has been pointed out in many

cases, that in businesses of this kind, which often are carried

on upon an extensive scale, and necessitate the employment

of numerous servants, legislation would be useless if the

master were not liable to penalties for his servant's act, as

well as the servant himself."

Section 8 of the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c.

93). ВЂ” This Act, which imposes penalties on pawnbrokers in

Various cases, provides that ; " For the purpose of this Act,

anything done or omitted by the servant, apprentice, or agent

of a pawnbroker in the course of, or in relation to the business

of the pawnljroker, shall be deemed to be done or omitted

(as the case may bo) by the pawnbroker himself"

Liability of a Principal for Public Nuisances committed by

his Agent. — It seems that principals arc liable to indictment

for public nuisances committed by their agents within

the ordinary scope of their employment, although the

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 131

particular nuisance in question may have been committed

without the principal's authority and even against his

express orders. Thus in Smith's Master and Servant (4th

ed. p. 317), we find it stated; "Again, masters are liable

to indictments for public nuisances, such as carrying on

offensive trades, committed by their servants, though their

masters have nothing to do personally with the nuisance

complained of. In such cases, also, if a master could shield

himself from criminal responsibility on the ground that he

personally had nothing to do with the carrying on the

trade, the real offender might escape with impunity, and

the public grievance remain unredressed."

B. V. Medley (1834), 6 C. & R 292 ; here the directors

of a gas company were held liable upon an indictment for

a nuisance committed by their superintendent and engineer

In conveying the refuse of the gas into the Thames, where-

by fish were destroyed and the water rendered unfit to

drink. The act complained of was committed under a

general authority to manage the works ; but the directors

were personally ignorant of the particular plan adopted,

which was a departure from the original and understood

method, which the directors had no reason to suppose had

been discontinued. Lord Denman, C.J., said ; " It seems

to me both common sense and law, that if persons for their

own advantage employ servants to conduct works, they

must be answerable for what is done by those servants."

B. v. Stepliens (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 702 ; here it was

decided that the owner of works carried on for his profit

by his agents, was liable to be indicted for a public

nuisance caused by the acts of such agents (viz. his work-

men) in carrying on the works, though done by them

without his knowledge and contrary to his general orders.

In giving judgment, Mellor, J., said ; " It is quite true that

this in point of form is a proceeding of a criminal nature,

but in substance I think it is in the nature of a civil pro-

ceeding, and I can see no reason why a different rule