LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1675, 15 February 1913, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. (Beforo his .Honour Mr. Justice Chapman.) OVERHANGING TREES. An ■unusual claim was heard in the Supremo Court yesterday, before his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. Tlu question involved was as to where the responsibility should rest if a nuisance were' created by trees, whose branches overhang neighbouring property and whoso roots spread into such neighbouring property. The parties were John Rose, settlor, of Wellington, and Isabella Rose, his wife," plaintiffs, and the Equity Boot Co., Ltd., and William Hannaiin, carrier, of Wellington, defendants. Mr. A. Dunn appeared for tho plaintiffs, whilp Mr. (J. P. Skwrett, K.C., and 'Mr. T. C. A. Hislop appeared for the defendants. From tho statement of claim, it appeared that the plaintiff, Isabella Rose, is the' owner of a section of land fronting Ingestro Street, und having a dwcllinghouso thereon. Tho Equity Boe,t Co., Ltd., and William Hannafin are the owners and occupiers as tenants in common in equal shares of an adjoining piece of laud. This latter piece of land is ,used a$ a right-of-way to properties to -tho .south of the land owned by Mrs. Rose." Along this right-of-way there is a. lino of very high trees, extending from Ingestre Street to tho back boundary of Mrs. Rose's land. It is.said that tho defendants (the Equity Boot Co. and William Hannafin) have suffered the trees to, .grow to such an extent that'the trees aro a' nuisance to Mr. and Mrs. Rose in their occupation of the premises adjoining. Further, it is sniff that tho trees beat against the house of tho plaintiffs (Mr. and Mrs. Rose), injuring the walls and roof, and-- disturbing the occupants by the noise; that the leaves from the trees block up tho gutters, spouting, and down-pipes or the house, causing them to overflow; that the roots from tho trees have grown into the plaintiffs' land .iml have blocked up the plaintiffs'.*path, and crushed and blocked up the plaintiffs' drains. By reason of the destruction of t,he drains, the plaintiffs (Mr. and Mrs. Rose) have had co renew tho drains and to employ labour to cut back the roots of the trees. For that purpose tho sum of £21 Bs. 6d. has been expended. As the defendants (the Equity Boot Co. and William Hannafin) had not taken steps to abate, the nuisance when' complaint was made, the plaintiffs (Mr. and Mrs. Rose) asked the Court for an injunction re--straining the defendants (the Equity Boot Co. and William Hannafin)' from continuing tho nuisance,''and'the plaintiffs further claimed tho sum of w£2so damages. ■ ' • ..

In addition to a general denial, the statement of defcDce mentioned that thetrees were planted over 25 years ago by persons-other than the defendants. It was said that the planting had been done by consent of the plaintiffs' predecessors in title," and the damage alleged had been done long prior to the acquisition of tho land by the defendants. Hearing of evidence occupied until 4.50 p.m., when his Honour reserved decision.