CHURCH BELLS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1124, 11 May 1911, Page 5

CHURCH BELLS.

STOPPED AS A NUISANCE. By Talcurach-Press Associatioa-Oopyticht Melbourne, May iO. The Full Court upheld the Judge's decision restraining the ringing of early church bolls at Caulh'eld. IS THE BELL A NUISANCE? COURT FINDS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. Mr. Justice a'Beskttt in October hist allowed the plaintiffs in this case .p a= damages, ar.d made an order that the boil should not bo rung on Sundays and holidays before 0 a.m. The plaintitts in the action were Robert J. Haddon and Ada Haddon, his wife, of Caullield; and defendants were the Rev. F. Lynch, vicar of St. Paul's Church of England, J);ranenong Road, Caulfield, and-the guardians connected with the church. In giving his judgment his Honour said: -"Is being thoroughly roused from sleep every Sunday morning a little before (.30, and again a little before B—if you can get to sleep in the interval—a nuisance? . . . Tha rousing up is effected by an unmelodious church bell, hung in the valley of an iron roof, which serves as a sounding board. The ringing is for two minutes in the first boat and three minutes in the second. The strokes are about 70 to Hie minute. The object of the ringing, as described by defendants, is to invite, or remind, churchgoers to attend early morning service—not to wake them up; for defendants say that tho bell docs not disturb the normal sleeper. There is no doubt, however, that it disturos tho plaintiff and his wife, who built a house for themselves and came to live in a quiet residential quarter of Malvern." Having quoted from the evidence, his Honour continued: "I think it a plain, sober and simple notion to object to being roused from sleep by your neighbour's bell when you are lying in bed at 7.30 a.m. on Sunday, unless lying there at that hour is an exceptional indulgence to which only sluggards or invalids are addicted. "Wit-ether it is so or not is a matter on which 1 have to make up my mind. . . . I think it is not exceptional, and that a large portion of the dwellers in Melbourne suburbs would be found in bed and asleep at 7.30 o'clock on Sunday morning. Men and women allow themselves longer hours of repose on the day of rest than on other days. Plaintiffs cannot bo considered delicate or fastidious for complaining of intrusion at an hour at which a like intrusion would be resented by thousands if they were subject to it. That many people are up and about at 7.30 on Sunday dees mt lessen the right of others to remain in bed and complain of being pulled cut by tho cars—if 1 may so describe the assaults of St. Paul's bell. . . . The cases quoted at (he hearing shew that the noises caused by church bells enjoy no immunity from restraint as nuisances. The lauciablo purpose for which tlu-y ;;ro rung affords no excuse. Churchos are not exempt from the application of the maxim ■which holds, gcod in other cases of nuisances."

Legal decisions wore quoted by his Honour in which it had been held that if a man lived iu a town it was necessary that he should subject, himself to the consequences of those operations of trade wnich may l>? curried on in hirj immediate locality, and which are actually necessary for trade and commerce, and he continued: "Applying these dicla to tho facts of the present case, and without any disrespect treating tho church Cor that purpose as if it carried oil a trade, I say that the early morning bel! is not a npcp.es.iry incident ,to its trade. It is not wanted'to attract customers, and 1 do not suppose thai a singlo customer would be lost by ils disconlinuauoe. Plaintiffs cannot bo required (o submit to the early bj-11 ringing as a necessary function. It is no part of tho church service—no incentive to attend. Jt merely announces Iho time for attendance in a manner uncalled for in these days of cheap clocks and watches. The bell may revive pleasant recollections fo n good churchman, but he would not wish them to b(> revived at tho expense of his neighbours' comfort."