## Facts

- White and Ward operated chemical works in Twickenham near a public highway and nearby dwellings.
- The works manufactured sulfuric and nitric acids through a process alleged to be loud and to emit strong, pervasive fumes.
- The Crown alleged the defendants “impregnated the air with noisome stinks,” affecting local inhabitants and persons traveling on the highway.
- White and Ward were indicted and convicted in the Court of King’s Bench for maintaining a common (public) nuisance.
- After conviction, they stopped the offending operations and disposed of the relevant materials.
- They moved in arrest of judgment, arguing that (i) the nuisance had been abated and (ii) the indictment was legally defective.

## Issues

1. Whether operating chemical works that emit widespread, unhealthy fumes near inhabited areas and a public highway constitutes a common (public) nuisance at common law.
2. Whether post-conviction abatement of the nuisance defeats the Crown’s right to proceed to judgment on the conviction.
3. Whether an indictment alleging injury to “all the King’s liege subjects” in the area and along the highway sufficiently pleads a public nuisance.

## Decision

- The court held the operation constituted an indictable common nuisance.
- The court denied the motion in arrest of judgment and allowed judgment to proceed notwithstanding subsequent abatement.
- The court held the indictment was legally sufficient in charging a nuisance affecting the public, including residents and highway travelers.

## Legal Principles

- A business may be a public nuisance if its operation materially interferes with public health, comfort, or convenience (including by emitting pervasive, harmful fumes into the air).
- The lawfulness or utility of a trade does not excuse conducting it in a manner that makes the air unwholesome or injurious to the public.
- Abatement after the offense does not negate criminal responsibility for a completed public nuisance; it may affect remedies or punishment but does not bar judgment.
- A public-nuisance indictment is sufficient when it alleges a nuisance affecting the public generally, including persons residing in the locality and those using a public highway.

## Conclusion

The court treated harmful air emissions from industrial chemical manufacture near a public highway and homes as a criminal public nuisance, rejected abatement as a bar to judgment after conviction, and sustained a broadly framed indictment alleging injury to the public at large.


Rex v. White & Ward, 1 Burr. 333, 97 Eng. Rep. 338 (K.B. 1757)