§  374


subject  in  a  v^  ry  important  case,  where  a  city,  under  authority  to  pre-
vent and  restrain  encroachments  on  rivers  running  through  it,  com-


and  different  from  those  sustained  by  the
public  generally.  School  District,  &c.  v.
617;  Billard  v.  Erhart,  35
Kan.  611;  Bl  inc  v.  Murray,  36  La.  An.
162.  See  also  Moore  r.  Langdon,  2
Mackey,  127.  A  public  nuisance  is  not
made  Legal  by  having  been  maintained  for
■•,.  Commonwealth  v.  Upton,
6  Gi  .  173;  New  Salem  v.  Eagle  Mill
i  L38    Mass.    8.      The   erection   of  a

building  in  a  public  street  to  be  used  as  a
market,  and  as  a  pound  for  confining
swiiii',  would  be  both  a  public  and  a  pri-

i  uisance,  and  »i<tij  be  enjoined  at  the
sail    of  any   one    threatened    with    injury

by.  Lutterloh  v.  Cedar  Keys,  15
1  306.  But  see  Benkel  v.  Detroit,  49
Mich.  249;  Index,  tit.  Injunction.  That
which  atl'eets  only  three  or  four  persons  is
a  private  and  not  a  public  nuisance.  The
King  ».  Lloyd,  4  Esp.  200.  The  term
"uuisance"  is  well  understood,  and  means
literally  annoyance,  -  anything  thai  work-
eth  hurt.  The  King  v.  White,  1  Burr.
In  King  v.  Davey,  5  Esp.  '217;
Burditl   '•.  Swenson,  17  Tex.  489.
