Quarantine regulations to extend to all persons, etc. Public Statutes, c. 80, § 65. 1816. Penalty for violation after public notice. Public Statutes, c. 80, § 66. 1816. Vessels suspected of infection to be ordered to quarantine ground. c. 80, § 67. 89. Such regulations shall extend to all persons, goods, and effects arriving in such vessels, and to all persons who may visit or go on board of the same. 90. Whoever violates any such regulation after notice thereof has been given in the manner before provided in this chapter shall forfeit not less than five nor more than five hundred dollars. 91. The board in each seaport town may at any time cause a vessel arriving in such port, when such vessel or the cargo thereof is in its opinion foul or infected so as to Public Statutes, endanger the public health, to be removed to the quarantine ground and thoroughly purified at the expense of the owners, consignees, or persons in possession of the same; and may cause all persons arriving in or going on board of such vessel, or handling the cargo, to be removed to any hospital under the care of the board, there to remain under their orders. 1816. Penalty, if mas. ter, seamen, etc., refuse to answer on oath. c. 80, § 68. 92. A master, seaman, or passenger, belonging to a vessel on board of which any infection then is or has lately Public Statutes, been, or is suspected to have been, or which has been at or has come from a port where an infectious distemper prevails that may endanger the public health, who refuses to make answer on oath to such questions as may be asked him relating to such infection or distemper by the board of health of the town to which such vessel may come (which oath any member of the board may adminster), shall forfeit a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars; and if not able to pay said sum, he shall suffer six months' imprisonment. 1797. Quarantine expenses to be 93. All expenses incurred on account of any person, paid by person vessel, or goods, under quarantine regulations, shall be Public Statutes, paid by such person or the owner of such vessel or goods respectively. or owner. c, 80, § 69. 1816. The owner of a vessel under quarantine regulations is not liable for the expenses of a seaman at a hospital, to which he had been transferred by order of the board of health of a town, and which was under their care. Inhabitants of Provincetown v. Smith, 120 Mass. 96. 94. DOGS; HYDROPHOBIA. c. 102, § 83. Every license issued to the owner of a dog shall Public Statutes, have printed thereon a description of the disease in dogs known as hydrophobia, said description to be supplied by the secretary of the state board of health to the clerks of the several cities and towns upon application therefor. OFFENSIVE TRADES. places for exer cising offensive trades; and them. c. 80, § 84. 95. The board of health of a town shall from time to Board to assign time assign certain places for the exercise of any trade or employment which is a nuisance or hurtful to the inhabi- may prohibit tants, or dangerous to the public health, or the exercise of Public Statutes, which is attended by noisome and injurious odors, or is otherwise injurious to their estates, and may prohibit the exercise of such trade or employment in places not so 1692. assigned; the board may also forbid such exercise within the limits of the town or in any particular locality thereof. All such assignments shall be entered in the records of the town, and may be revoked when the board shall think proper. 1 So far as this section extends, the rules and course of proceeding under the common law are superseded, but in all other respects it continues in force as before. If the board of health acts and assigns places in which any particular trade or employment may be carried on, such an assignment would undoubtedly legalize the occupation of any person conducting his business in that place, and he would then be liable to no process, suit or prosecution, other than those which are specially appointed and prescribed. But if no such assignment has been made, and the board, in the exercise of their discretion, have not seen fit to act at all, a remedy for injuries to the public or for violation of private rights by the permanent maintenance of offensive trades and employments must be found in the rules and principles of the common law. The statute, by leaving that body to act according to the discretion of its members, has imposed no duty upon them which they are imperatively bound to perform, and no means have been provided by a recourse to which, as by a complaint made to them, they can be compelled to exercise the power with which they are intrusted. Commonwealth v. Rumford Chemical Works, 16 Gray, 231. The board may pass an order prohibiting the exercise of an offensive trade, without having given previous notice to parties interested. Belcher v. Farrar, 8 Allen, 327. In the above case, Bigelow, C. J., says: "If, as preliminary to the exercise of any jurisdiction over the subject-matter, the selectmen were required to give notice to all persons exercising offensive trades or employments within the limits of the town, of their intention to prohibit the continuance of them, it would follow necessarily that such persons would have a right to appear and object, and ask for a hearing and trial on the question whether the use of their property was hateful or noxious, so as to fall within any of the classes contemplated by the statute. This would often lead to protracted examinations, which might occupy days or weeks. If, in the mean time, the alleged offensive and noisome trades might be carried on great injury to health might be occasioned; and it would be impossible to prevent the evils which it was the manifest object of the statute promptly to suppress." It is questionable whether the prohibition of offensive trades is a proper subject of a by-law or ordinance, because that matter is specially provided for by statute; and to prohibit their exercise in any particular locality in a town or city by by-law or ordinance would interfere with the right of appeal to a jury which the statute secures. Commonwealth v. Patch, 97 Mass. 223. The keeping of swine cannot be considered a trade within the meaning of the law, and would be a proper subject of a by-law or ordinance. Commonwealth v. Patch, 97 Mass. 223; but see 135 Mass. 526. An order of the board under this section is not in the nature of an adjudication of a particular case, but of a general regulation of the trade or employment mentioned therein. It is not to be construed with technical strictness, but with the same liberality as all votes and proceedings of municipal bodies or officers who are not presumed to be versed in the forms of law; and every reasonable presumption is to be made in its favor. It need not state in direct terms that the trade which it prohibits is a nuisance. It is sufficient if the order clearly shows, that, in the opinion of the board, the exercise of such trade will be hurtful to the inhabitants, or injurious to the public health, or be attended by noisome and injurious odors. Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 261. A board of health of a town in 1881 made a regulation which provided that no swine should be kept in any place in the town, without a permit being first obtained from the board. On a complaint against a person for violation of this regulation, it appeared that the defendant kept about a hundred and fifty swine, and had been engaged for years in the business of feeding offal to swine. Held, that such a keeping of swine was an "employment," and that the authority of the board to regulate the same was under the Pub. Stats., chap. 80, sect. 84 (Gen. Stats., chap. 26, sect. 52), and not under sect. 18 (5); that the defendant was entitled to notice under sect. 87 (55); and that a publication under sect. 19 (6) was not sufficient. Commonwealth v. Young, 135 Mass. 526. The following order of a board of health was held to be a valid exercise of the power conferred upon boards of health: "Ordered, that the exercise of the trade or employment of preparing tripe, manufacturing neat's-foot oil, tallow and glue stock, and the boiling and trying of bones, hoofs, heads, refuse, and partially decayed animal matter, and as a part of such trade or employment, the storing about the premises where such business is carried on, of putrid meats, bones, heads, legs, and the vàrious other materials from which offensive smells emanate, which are used in such trade or employment, be and the same hereby is forbidden within the limits of the city of Taunton." Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 261. A board of health may regulate as well as prohibit the exercise of offensive trades. Sawyer v. State Board of Health, 125 Mass. 195. The same power by this section is given to the boards of health of towns and cities as is given by sect. 93, chap. 80, Pub. Stats., to the state board of health. The only difference is this, that by sect. 93 the state board is bound to give notice to a party, and allow him a hearing before it can pass an order of prohibition; but under this section the local boards may pass an order of prohibition without any previous notice. Sawyer v. State Board of Health, 125 Mass. 191 on complaint may revoke such assign Public Statutes, 96. When it appears on a trial before the superior Superior court court for the county, upon a complaint made by any person, that a place or building so assigned has become a ment. nuisance, by reason of offensive smells or exhalations pro- c. 80, § 85. ceeding from the same, or is otherwise hurtful or dangerous to the neighborhood or to travellers, the court may revoke 1710. such assignment and prohibit the further use of such place or building for the exercise of either of the aforesaid trades or employments, and may cause such nuisance to be removed or prevented. 97. A person injured either in his comfort or the en- Action for damjoyment of his estate by such nuisance may have an action of tort for the damage sustained thereby. ages from puisance orders of pro hibition, etc., to Occupant. If 98. Orders of prohibition shall be served upon the occupant or person having charge of the premises where be served on such trade or employment is exercised. If the party upon he refuses to whom such order is served for twenty-four hours after may prevent. such service refuses or neglects to obey the same, the Public Statutes, obey, board Penalty. c. 80, § 87. Appeal by person aggrieved. c. 80, § 88. 1883, 133, § 1. board shall take all necessary measures to prevent such exercise; and the person so refusing or neglecting shall forfeit not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars. A notice ordered by the board and duly received is sufficiently served. It need not necessarily be served by a constable or other officer. Winthrop v. Farrar, 11 Allen, 398. The supreme judicial court has authority under its general jurisdiction as a court of equity to restrain by injunction the carrying on of an offensive trade which has been prohibited by a board of health. But the board must act in good faith towards the parties interested, and if by their action they have misled them and put them in a position to prevent their availing themselves of their right to appeal, and by reason thereof they have lost their opportunity, to appeal, the court will refuse to enforce the orders of the board by a process in equity. Winthrop v. Farrar, 11 Allen, 402. A bill in equity to restrain a party from exercising an offensive trade or employment prohibited by the board of health of a city is properly brought in the name of the city and properly signed by the mayor. Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 262. 99. Any person aggrieved by an order may appeal Public Statutes, therefrom, and shall within three days from the service thereof upon him apply to the superior court, if in session in the county where the premises are located with reference to which such order is made, or in vacation to a justice of said court, for a jury; and such court or justice shall issue a warrant for a jury, to be impanelled at a time and place expressed in the warrant, in the manner provided in regard to the laying out of highways. If a person' by mistake of law or fact or by accident fails to appeal from any such order, and to apply to the superior court or a justice thereof for a jury within said three days, and if he makes it appear to the court or justice that such failure was caused by mistake or accident, he may at any time within thirty days from the service of the order upon him appeal therefrom and apply for a jury with the same effect as if done within the said three days. Trade not to be exercised 100. During the pendency of the appeal such trade or Public Statutes, employment shall not be exercised contrary to the order; meanwhile. c. 80, § 89. |