NUISANCE PROVED

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 74, 29 March 1933, Page 9

NUISANCE PROVED

NAIL-MAKING MACHINE

INJUNCTION GRANTED

Judgment was given today by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in the case in which an. injunction was sought against H. Hanson, and- Co., Ltd., on account of the noise created by their nail-making machine in Hopper Street. "At the conclusion of the hearing," says the Chief Justice in his judgment, "I was asked by counsel personally to inspect the two 'properties, and this I did in company with counsel. '. I had the opportunity both on the defendant's premises and in the plaintiff's house, of seeing and feeling the effect produced by the defendant's plant working respectively with and without tlie nailmaking machine. The alleged nuisance was described by' witnesses as being similar to the pulsating noise and vibration which a person experiences on board one .of the. Wellington-Lyttel-ton ferry steamers anywhere amidships when the machinery is running and the sea is smooth.- As the result of my. inspection I find that this is" quite an apt description of the noise and Vibration from the. nail-making machine felt by the occupants of the house on the plaintiff's property. lam satisfied that the noise and vibration are such a3 to interfere materially with the comfort of the persons in the house during the daytime when the machine is running, and that a case of nuisance has been established. The increase of noise I find does interfere substantially-with the ordinary comfort ' of human existence according to the standard of conifort prevailing in the locality. "The plaintiffs arc entitled to an injunction but not in the wide terms in which they claim it. I do-not think it would be right to leave the injunction in the vague manner which the statement of claim proposes because the last thing that -I should do would be to make any order to impede or fetter' the business car T ried on by 9 the defendant. The injunction should I think be limited to the operations of the nai^making, machine. All that is" required is to prevent the defendant from working or using its nail-making machine so as to occasion any greater: amount of noise or vibration than had been experienced in the house owned and occupied by tha respective plaintiffs up to the time in October, 1932, when the nail-making machine was'installed. Thfere is no reason so far, as the plaintiffs are concerned why the defendant should not continue- to operate the nail-making machine if this can. be done in such a manner as not to increase the noise and vibration that were felt prior to October, 1932. One of the witnesses called for the plaintiffs, an architect, says that he thinks, that this can be done. JCo doubt it will involve the defendant in a certain.amount of expense, but this cannot be avoided if-the defendant desires to continue -its nailmaking operations. './. "Probably counsel .will be able to agree upon the .terms of the injunction on the lines I have indicated. If they cannot do so, the draft may be referred to me for settlement. In .order to enable tlfe defendant to rearrange its plant without any avoidable loss of business the injunction shall lie in the office of the Court.for one month, ffhat time will probably be ample, but leave is reserved to the defendant' to apply for an extension if necessary.-' ? ■ .The plaintiffs in, the. action were Eugene Francis McCarthy, "-Richard Hulse, and Cyril Easthope, for whom Mr. W. H. Cunningham appeared, and they were granted costs on the lowest scale. Mr. T. C. A. Hislop and Mr. G. Powles represented the defendant company. - - • -. ■