{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027090694935217905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004711425206124852, 'mean_word_length': 4.448717948717949, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conceptions of property in common law discourse

In 1629 Jones, the registrar to the court of the Bishop of Gloucester, suffered so from the smoke emanating from a nearby brewhouse that he brought an action in nuisance before the Court of Kings Bench. At the time, as water was unsafe to drink, beer and ale were staple beverages. Inclined to reject the claim, Whitelock J pronounced that ‘what is necessary for the commonwealth can never be called a nuisance to any private person.’ His colleague on the bench, Dodderidge J, was more cautious, concluding that, had the brewery been a long-established enterprise, no action would have been available, as one who comes to live near an existing brewhouse must take it as one finds it. However, where - as was true of this case - the brewhouse was a relatively new operation, the matter was less clear.