To steep stinking sheep-skins (2 _Strange_ 686) or other noxious, noisome, or poisonous thing is indictable. It is a nuisance, for which an action will lie, to erect a lime-kiln[556] so near a fish-pond that it infects the water, and the fish die, or to make a drain which brings in unwholesome food to them, 16 _Vin. Abr._ 33;[557] and if it be on a navigable river it is indictable, as in the recent case of the _King_ at the relation of the city of _London_, conservators of the _Thames_ against _Munroe_ and _Evans_, proprietors of certain gass-works, the refuse from which being discharged into the river is said to have destroyed the fish;[558] the defendants were found guilty. _Croydon Assizes_, 1821. Noises, whether by day (_Tenant_ v. _Jones_ K. B. Feb. 15, 1821) or by night (_Rex_ v. _Smith_, 2 Str. 704) are nuisances, for these not only render life uncomfortable, but are prejudicial to the health of invalids; there is a case in equity where an agreement not to toll a church-bell was enforced by injunction. But it is said the fears of mankind, however reasonable, will not create a nuisance; therefore it is no nuisance to erect a building for the purposes of inoculation, (_Jac. Law Dict. Anon Dec._ 18, 1752; 3 _Atk._ 21, 720, 750.) In this case a motion was made for an injunction to stay the building of a house for the purpose of inoculating for the small-pox in Cold Bath Fields; for the motion the following cases and authorities were cited, 2 _Roll. Abr._ 139, (the case of _Browne_ for dividing a messuage) _Hawk. Pl. c._ 75, _s._ 11; 1 _Lutw._ 169. But _Lord Hardwicke_ said, that upon an indictment of that kind there had been lately an acquittal at Rye, and refused the injunction. This decision does not appear to be reconcileable with the cases and statutes respecting the keeping of gunpowder,[559] which is a nuisance by the reasonable fears of possible danger, (_Rex_ v. _Taylor_, 2 _Str._ 1167, 1169.) So also it was a nuisance, indictable, to divide a house in a town for poor people to inhabit in, by reason whereof it will be more dangerous in the time of sickness and infection of the plague, (2 _Roll. Abr._ 139); and this possible evil has often been realised in the obscurer parts of _London_ in cases of typhus, and more frequently in the liberty of _Dublin_ where the narrowness of the streets, and the alleged operation of the window-tax have excluded the possibility of proper ventilation. It is therefore more reasonable to suppose that the utility of the establishment in question in the above cited case, and the comparative openness of the situation prevailed over the fear of possible risk, and that the principal objection was the exercise of the summary jurisdiction of a court of equity in a matter more properly triable at law, rather than from an opinion that a receptacle for highly infectious diseases in a populous neighbourhood was not a nuisance.