SALVATION ARMY NOISES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 90, 22 March 1916, Page 6

SALVATION ARMY NOISES.

: Mg, A FULL COURT INJUNCTION. - ■* . A judgment of great importance to the Salvation Army was given by the Full Court at Adelaide, South,.Aus* tralia, on March 4th, in the case of C. McKenzie versus Adjutant Pawley, F. Hestridge and A,. Clark, officers of the Mbhift Gamhier Salvation Army. The plaintiff, ' who resides near the Army hall, sued for £SOO damages, and sought to restrain the defendants from continuing to play their band, sing, clap hands and stamp their feet in such a manner as to interfere with his comfort and to reduce the value of his property. The Chief Justice said this seemed to be the first occasion oii which legal proceedings had been instituted with respect to the sounds emahating from a religious service. The effects* described were that the plaintiff and his son were ,by. the service at 7 a.m. on Sundays, when singing took p)ace, and the sounds which proceeded from other, band practice were so distracting that it was impossible to converse with reasonable comfort inside plaintiff’s house.' Plaintiff, however, was entitled by! law -to-be -protected :in- the ■ enjoy merjt of his dwelling house. As ikr as the singing in the Salvation Ajrmy Hall was concerned, apart from its adjuhqts;,.pf band playing, hand clapping and jfte like, there was nothing in the." evidence to show that it was 1 of mi»||yfcaractef. _ If i* caused; discomfort plaintiff’s house he must submit tM|t, and his Honor i was not prepared mhold, as he was invited to do, that ho did not attend such, services’ll a right to lie in bed on Sunday mmmfcgs undisturbed by the sounds thaf-avose from them. The playing of the band appeared to be a different matter. The Army W jfrom plain* tiff said dntffi had no diirfculfy'm behoving «; J.ljS* occurred foV Sunday, and at intervals between' 8 and 9.30 on Most week fights; Ji his amounted to a nuisance. Hand clapping was Undoubtedly an unusual incident of devotional service Hi the present case it was occasionally made use of to mark time in singing, thus rendering unreasonable and oh jectienable What would otherwise Ik innocuous), was a nuisance, - am ■should also be .prohibited. The wjum tioh wouM require dcfehdfinLs to abate the nuisance, but would not other wise interfere with their form of worship! ‘ , , The order would he that they he restrained from doing any of the following things upon the premises of the Salvation Army, described m the statement of claim, in such.,a manner as to occasion arty nuisance or injury to plaintiff: (D Band playing, cither with or without the accompaniment ot singing; (-2) band practice; (3) clap .ping of bands; and (4) shouting ejaculations. Whether these things would have to be abandoned altogether ho was not prepared to say Perhaps some modifications of the building miodit he effected which would avoid the necessity, hut defendants would be well advised not to indulge m experiments without the concurrence ot plaintiff. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover ’anything lor depieolation in tie value .of his property, J was entitled o some damages, the sum of U)s; usually, awarded forDtom - nal damages, would bo sufficient.