or corporate, can have an action for a public nuſance, or puniſh it; but only the king in his public capacity of ſupreme governor, and pater-familias of the kingdom[1]. Yet this rule admits of one exception; where a private perſon ſuffers ſome extraordinary damage, beyond the reſt of the king’s ſubjects, by a public nuſance: in which caſe he ſhall have a private ſatisfaction by action. As if, by means of a ditch dug acroſs a public way, which is a common nuſance, a man or his horſe ſuffer any injury by falling therein; there, for this particular damage, which is not common to others, the party ſhall have his action[2]. Alſo if a man hath abated, or removed, a nuſance which offended him (as we may remember it was ſtated, in the firſt chapter of this book, that the party injured hath a right to do) in this caſe he is entitled to no action[3]. For he had choice of two remedies; either without ſuit, by abating it himſelf, by his own mere act and authority; or by ſuit, in which he may both recover damages, and remove it by the aid of the law: but having made his election of one remedy, he is totally precluded from the other.
The remedies by ſuit, are, 1. By action on the caſe for damages; in which the party injured ſhall only recover a ſatisfaction for the injury ſuſtained; but cannot thereby remove the nuſance. Indeed every continuance of a nuſance is held to be a freſh one[4]; and therefore a freſh action will lie, and very exemplary damages will probably be given, if, after one verdict againſt him, the defendant has the hardineſs to continue it. Yet the founders of the law of England did not rely upon probabilities merely, in order to give relief to the injured. They have therefore provided two other actions; the aſſiſe of nuſance, and the writ of quod permittat proſternere: which not only give the plaintiff ſatisfaction for his injury paſt, but alſo ſtrike at the root and remove the cauſe itſelf, the nuſance that occaſioned the injury. Theſe two actions however can only be brought by the
