Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 1038, 9 June 1871, Page 3

The London correspondent of the Alliance News writes; —"Vice-Chan .pellor Bacon has recently decided that Sir Joseph Whitworth must stop the working of his great steam-hammer near a Roman Catholic Chapel in Manchester, on the ground of the noise proving a nuisance to the persons connected with that place of worship. It docs not appear from the evidence re ported whether the works were placed near the chapel, or (he chapel near the works; it was sufficient in the view of the learned judge that the operations of the one proved prejudicial to the legal use of the other, to draw from him an order restraining the action complained of. Tl would not in his opinion have been a valid answer to the allegation that Sir Joseph Whitworth's hammer is a very ingenious invention, and of great industrial value, nor that Sir Joseph's «vested interests' would suffer largely from the issue of the restraining order. The plaintiffs' case having been proved, the conclusion was legally irresistible. What do our liquor dealing friends say to the justice of this action ? If they say they have a licence and that Sir Joseph had not, the reply is correct enough, but it simply puts the casethns : instead of the judges of the Court of Chancery having jurisdiction in regard lo nuisances under the liquor traffic, this jurisdiction is committed to licensing magistrates, to the \evy intent that no nuisances of this kind may be suffered; but, in reality, nuisances ot this sort, only immeasurably more aggravated than any charged against Sir Joseph Whitworth's hammer, are innumerable and incessant; and as the prime object of law is to guard society, it is desirable that the jurisdiction now so inefficiently exercised should be committed to the persons affected by the nuisance, who are the best judges of the question ot fact ; for the question of fact once settled, the only result possible, in consistency with the state of the law concerning nuisances, is that the causes of the nuisances should be stopped. As for compensation, what success would an application to ViceOhancellor Bacon receive if made on Sir Joseph Whitworth's behalf? The latter will be happy if he escape having to pay the costs of the plaintiffs, who have succeeded in putting him to a great pecuniary loss "