Private Cases

Private Cases
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Jump up to: a b Harris, P. R. (1998). A History of the British Museum Library 1753–1973 . London: The British Library. ISBN 0-7123-4562-0 .

^ Craig, Alec, "Above all Liberties", London: Allen and Unwin, 1942, p.166-67.

^ Jump up to: a b Karen, Attar (31 May 2016). Directory of rare book and special collections in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland . ISBN 9781783300167 . OCLC 986805847 .

^ Kearney, Patrick J, "The Private Case: an annotated bibliography of the Private Case Erotica Collection in the British (Museum) Library", London: J. Landesman, 1981, ISBN 0-905150-24-4

The Private Case of the British Library is a collection of erotic printed books, transferred from the British Museum in 1973. [1] The collection is similar in purpose to the Enfer at the Bibliothèque nationale , the Δ (Greek Delta) collection in the Library of Congress and the Φ collection (Greek Phi) at the Bodleian Library . [2]

The Private Case, established in the 1850s, contains material from the main British Museum library collection that was segregated on grounds of perceived obscenity, under the Victorian mores of the time. Its name derives from it being kept originally in lockable book cases within the Keeper's Room. [1] Individual items were moved in and out of the Private Case as attitudes towards obscenity shifted over time. The collection has approximately 250 volumes today, but has held up to 4000 volumes in the past. [3] It consists predominantly of printed fiction and poetry, with some social science material, that range in date from the 17th to the late 20th century. There is also some typescript, microfilm and photographic material. The collection contains works by notable figures in the world of written erotica including The Earl of Rochester , the Marquis de Sade and William Simpson Potter . [4]

Amidst individual items that were transferred from the general collection or acquired by donation, purchase or legal deposit are a number of sub-collections given as bequests. The most significant gift was that of Henry Spencer Ashbee , who gave approximately 700 volumes in 1900, although 200 of these were later transferred elsewhere. David Lindsay, 27th Earl of Crawford , bequeathed over 100 volumes. The 'Eliot-Phelips' collection, formed by Edward Phelips (1882–1928), was added to the Private Case in 1950. Charles Reginald Dawes bequeathed approximately 250 volumes in 1964. Smaller donations were also made by Beecher Moore , Alfred Rose (1876–1936) and Dr Eric Dingwall , also an honorary curator of the Private Case.

The Private Case has been a static, closed collection since 1990, and every item has an individual record on the British Library Explore Catalogue . Only two items are restricted due to their fragile condition; everything else is available for registered readers to consult in the Rare Books & Manuscripts Reading Room without the need for curatorial permission. [3]

The #1 signal-blocking cell phone case

Pick a currency

USD

CAD

EUR

GBP

Electronically-shielded
Extremely Durable

Superior impact protection

Highly water-resistant
Precision-manufactured in the USA
Guaranteed to block wireless intrusions
Protects your device from the effects of an EMP

We'd love to hear from you. "Contact Us" and we'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
Independently tested by MET Laboratories: A leading independent electrical testing and certification lab.
Please direct all inquiries to Privacy Research Inc.
Stories of cell phone spying , tracking , stalking , and eavesdropping fill the airwaves and the internet, leaving users of these devices increasingly concerned about the security of their confidential data, geo-location (GPS), and voice communications. Criminals can compromise your phone even when you think your phone is turned off by utilizing back doors originally built into your wireless devices for law enforcement use.
Until now, there was no reliable method to defend against these intrusions. The "PrivacyCase” stops them immediately by allowing you to control when and where your device is accessed. Our electronically shielded protective case was designed to provide users of wireless devices with a method to counteract the attempted hijacking of communications data & geo-location transmissions while preventing the device from being used to eavesdrop on the activities of the user.
The PrivacyCase, the #1 signal-blocking cell phone case, has been independently tested by MET Laboratories and has proven to provide up to 109dB of actual shielding effectiveness.
Compare this to the soft cases which have had their products independently tested and whose published results show that the best shielding effectiveness they have been able to achieve is 62dB. Several other soft cases claim effectiveness based on the materials used and not the actual product they end up making out of those materials; there is a big difference. We tested some of these soft cases along side the PrivacyCase in the real world and posted the results here .
The PrivacyCase has been independently tested by MET Laboratories and has proven to provide up to 109dB of actual shielding effectiveness.
Independently tested by MET Laboratories: A leading independent electrical testing and certification lab.
Sign up for the latest deals, new releases and more...

I help people navigate their law degrees
🎓 Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively.
🎬 One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!)
📚 FREE courses, content, and other exciting giveaways.
Facts : The government passed a statute setting up an oil refinery
Held : The Court said that any activity which was necessary as a consequence of it being an oil refinery was excused from liability for nuisance
Facts : In this case, the claimant was complaining about building work going on next door
Held : The Court said that some building work is inevitable as buildings need repair/maintenance/building. However, the building works must be reasonable, so if there is too much dust and noise he may have a claim in nuisance
Facts : A tenant of flats complained of noise from the upstairs flat. The issue was that the council had renovated the flats with wooden flooring which made the noise from upstairs louder than it should be. The tenant wanted the landlord to do something about it.
Held : The court said the tenant couldn't complain as the people upstairs are acting normally (i.e. they were just walking within their flat). The court said what they are really complaining about is that there is not enough sound insulation – so in that case, the downstairs tenants get what they pay for
Facts : A pig farm was making an awful smell. The claimant sued for nuisance
Held : The claimant had to put up with that smell for 12 years and so received damages for £8000
Facts : Pickles offered to sell land to the local council, but they refused. So Pickles dug a well into his land and drained all the water as it came through his land, so none of the water ended up in the local council's hands.
Held : The court held he was not allowed to do this because the defendant had acted with malice. However, note, most commentators do not agree with the outcome of this case
Facts : Eastern Counties (a company) were using chemicals that seeped through the floor of their building into the water supply of Cambridge Waters - so the drinking water was being contaminated.
Held : The court held that the chemicals seeping though the floor was not foreseeable, so it certainly wasnt foreseeable that the chemicals would have made its way into the water supply. Therefore, they were not liable for nuisance.
Facts : In this case, there were 2 adjoining houses. In one house, two women gave music lessons to pupils as part of their job. This led to the guy next door writing to them nasty letters complaining about the noise. He then got annoyed and and started to bang on the wall whenever the women were doing their lessons. The teachers therefore sued the man for nuisance.
Held : The court founded in favour of the women i.e. the man was guilty of nuisance. The man had made noise “deliberately and maliciously for the purpose of annoying the [claimants]”
Facts : A man owned a farm next to an RAF base which made a lot of noise
Held : The court said they wont just grant an injunction and shut down the RAF as they are doing an important job. But the court acknowledged that the burden of having an RAF shouldn’t fall on just the claimant and should be a burden everyone should face. So, the court was willing to award a substantial amount of damages – he got £1million.
Facts : In this case, there was a disused naval dockyard and the local council wanted to regenerate this area and turn it into a commercial dockyard. This caused a lot more noise and traffic in the area.
Held : The court held that it was not a nuisance because this is now the character of the neighbourhood - the nieghbours cannot simply hold back changes because they do not like it!
Facts : Over a period of time small parts of the national trust's land fell onto Leakey's land, but nothing was done about it. One day it all collapsed and damaged Leakey's land quite badly
Held : The court held the national trust could have reasonable have stopped it, so they are liable for nuisance
Facts : This is an interesting case. Esso had an oil depot and they were using it 24/7. Halsey had a house nearby and was complaining abut the noise of trucks driving by
Held : The court said it was nuisance, despite the fact that the trucks were driving by (on the road) and not on Esso's land itself. In other words, despite the requirement that nuisance must emanate from land belonging to that person, there was nuisance found here
FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades
SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know
INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job
We work really hard to provide you with incredible law notes for free...
The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE!
Facts : A church was next to the local electricity generator and the church was comoplaining about the noise.
Held : The court said, if you are having quiet prayer of course you are going to hear that noise, but if you are going about your life in a normal everyday way then you won't hear the noise and it won't bother you. Thus, the court said that this wasn't nuisance. The chuch was being unusually sensitive - it is their unusual need for silence that is causing the problem.
Facts : Emmett owned a big plot of land and he had plans to build on it, then sell it off and make lots of money. THe man next door to him wished to start breeding silver foxes and sell their fur. Emmett did not like that as he thought that would devalue his land. Emmett decided to shoot around the boarder of his land during the foxes' breeding
Held : The court said that you can shooot on your land all you like, but he was only doing so in order to make a noise and ruin the farm next door - therefore, the shooting was seen as malicious and a nuisance
Facts : When Canary Wharf was being built people were complaining it interfered with their TV reception
Held : The court said that you cannot complain over the fact that someone has built something on their land - so it was not a nuisance
Held : If you move next to a stadium you have to expect a reasonable amount of noise. However, an injunction was placed against the staium to reduce the amount of noise it made
Facts : There was a build up of gas which caused a gas explosion
Held : The court said that the buiold-up of gas was a 'state of affairs', meaning that they could sue the defendant for private nuisance. This is quite a creative judgment but it does not really reflect what is going on as the owners did not foresee the explosion nor did they know there was a build-up of gas. It is likely that if this case were decided today it would not fall within the remit of private nuisance
Facts : Morris complained that electromagnetics from train-tracks, close to his house, were intefering with his recording studio equipment (for his business). Network Rail argued, however, that the interference was not foreseeable
Held : The court agreed with Network Rail i.e. the interference from the electromagnetics was not foreseeable so there was no nuisance. So, although there was interference, and this interference was by a state of affairs, it wasn’t a nuisance because the effect wasn’t foreseeable
Facts : The defendant, who was being sued, had the basement of a building. The work he was doing needed the basement to maintain really high temperatures, which caused the flat above to get quite warm. The flat above was being used to make paper and the heat, from
Held : The court said that this was not a nuisance because they have especially sensitive paper → if they were making normal paper it wouldn’t have been a problem and if they were doing anything normal in there then the heat wouldn’t have been a problem
Facts : There was a monastery with a big chunk of land, which included a drainage ditch. Trespassers (the council) came onto the land and interfered with the drainage ditch to modernise it. They interfered in such a way that it was blocked. When it subsequently rained, the rain did not drain properly and flooded the nieghbouring land.
Held : The court held that this was a nuisance
Facts : The claimant bought a house in the industrial part of a town so you have to expect a certain amount of industrial processes occuring i.e. there will be a certain level of pollution, smell, and noise. Nevertheless, this does not mean the factories can do what they want. The claimant here was complaining that because of the factories his plants were dying
Held : The court held that the fact the claimant's plants were dying goes beyond what is reasonable. Despite the claimant living in an area where he should expect a certain level of pollution/inconvenience the court held this goes too far and is not acceptable/unreasonable - thus, this was a private nuisance.
Held : The court held that interference on another's land must be "more than fanciful, more than mere delicacy or fastidiousness" and it must be "an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort of human existence"
Facts : A farm got planning permission to be extended, but the smell was very bad and the neigbour sued.
Held : The court held that living next to a farm you have to expect some smell but this goes beyond reasonable – so despite having planning permission this was still a nuisance. The court took the stance that "the simple grant of planning permission cannot be taken, ipso facto, to license what would otherwise be a nuisance". This case certainly appears to work contrary to the case of Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock [1993]
Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers.
✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more!
Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work.
© 2022 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved.

From idea to realization. From concept to production. In every city, in every country, on every location. Full event-management and any necessary support: from celebrity-management, tech.service to scripting and stage-direction. It’s all about Private Case Event company.
Development of action from A to Z and its filling
Sound, light, scenic equipment and many other things
Management of process of creation of action, administration
Gala-dinner in Russian style took the magnificent place at the foot of the highest building in the world, Burj Khalifa, the Armani hotel terrace.
The presentation of the book The Phone Number of The Universe set on the venue of the posh Moscow club restaurant Modus.
New Year’s night at the Burlesque style shook the elegant venue of the legendary Buddha bar in St.Petersburg

Double Penetration Black Video
Lingerie Posing
Teens Blonde Missionary

Private Cases

Report Page