It rests upon the mistaken. assumption that the determination of the health authorities is final and conclusive. The jurisdiction of the board depends upon the existence of the nuisance, and that is always open to judicial inquiry, even though the property owner • may have had a hearing before the board on the subject. Health Dept. v. Rector, supra, p. 48, where the whole subject is elaborately discussed. ■ Even the act’ under which the defendant proceeded in this case does not assume to do more than to declare that the orders- of the health board are to be treated ás “ prima facie' just and legal.” While the judgment of the 'board upon the question is entitled to great weight, and will not be- disturbed if it is within the bounds of reason, its reasonableness is still open to inquiry in any judicial proceeding, either civil or criminal, in which it may be called in question. But where sufficient grounds exist for action, the latter may be summary and without “ due process of law,” as that phrase is commonly understood. Lawton v. Steele, 119 N. Y. 226.
In the case cited the court, after reviewing the cases' upon the subject, says (p. 231): “ These authorities sufficiently establish the proposition that the constitutional guaranty does not take away the common-law right of abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings without judicial trial or process.”