NEXT DOOR BABY.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9398, 19 March 1909, Page 3

NEXT DOOR BABY.

t An amusing case was heard in ■ London recent];,in which Mr Joseph 'William Moy, a carpenter, sued Mr Stoop, 'treasurer of the Fulham Day Nursery,' seeking an injunction to restrain an alleged nuisance. It ap- . pears that a * creche was established nest door to the house owned by the irascible carpenter, and three children were left by their mothers in the mornings, oafed for all daymand collected again in the evening, The institution was licensed for twentyseven babies, and the burden of the plaintiff’s complaint was that the dherubsjoried {and screamed praotiv - oally from the time of their arrival ' pntll their departure. The intervals were filled to overflowing by the joyous beatings of toy drums and the clarion calls of tin trumpets. The carpenter averred that bis wife, who was in: a delicate' state of health, was Buffering injury by [Jthe children’s vociferations. His tenant had given notice Of his early intention to quit the scene of so large an allowance of childhood’s nappy prattle, and altogetheriche establishment was prejudicially affecting his and ■ material interests. In cross-examina-tion, the virtnonsly indignant worker in wood was constrained to admit that his vaunted “pleasure gardens” was merely the place where the family washing was hung out to the battle and the breeze,, and that motor omnibnses lumbered past the bouse at alt hours of the day. Getting down to bed-rock, he confessed that he had been compelled to lower his rent on acconnt of the large advertisement “Fulham Day ’ Nursery” frightening the timid apartment hunters away from the locality. Another witness, who also kept lodgers, said the crying of the childxan interfered with his rest “during the daytime,” He had had mnoh difficulty in getting a lodger, but finally contrived to “snap” one. He . also objected that the faces of the 'little ones were not so clean as they might bl). A third witness objected to the crying, but not to the playing, “as he had been a boy himself once, ” A woman was called to give evidence, but said she heard no excessive crying, possibly on aooonnt of her being deaf. Mr Justice Chappell took a common-sense view of the matter, and after pointing otit that there was-no legal.limit to a nextdoor neighbour's family—not even two sets of twins could be made cause of action—he declared the creche was not a nuisance in the fatherly eye of the law, and gave ■ judgment for defendant accordingly.