AN INTERESTING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10231, 6 May 1911, Page 5

AN INTERESTING CASE.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. A case was beard in tho Masterton MagistrateV; Court yesterday, in which H. H. Wimsett claimed from George Daysh the sum of £25 for alleged nuisance caused by defendant's horses. . j Mr C. A. Pov-nn 1 ! appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr P. L. Rollings for defendant. Dr. Archer Hosking stated that he had attended the plaintiff on and off for some years. Ho'was a robust man, but during the last-three ■months ho had suffered from neurasthenia, insomia, and intense pains in the head. A disturbance at night by horses would seriously injure the man's health. Witness had noticed the bad condition of the yard adjoining tho house of the plaintiff. The windows of plaintiff's house could not be opened on account of tho swarms of flies and the bad odour. Helen Wimsett, wife of the plaintiff, stated that she and her husband occupied a property in Wrigley Street, owned by the witness. During the last sjx months he.- husband's hen th had been seriously impared by the noise of horses near the house. Until recently the ground had been in a filthy state. Witness had asked Mr Daysh on. several occasions to remove the horses. The nuisance could easily be remedied in a very short time. Witness had writen to the Inspector to get him to remove the filth, TT. H. Wimreit, plaintiff, and husband of the previous witness, ascribed his illness to sleeplessness caused by the noise of the horse?, in the yard next door. Witness bad asked defendant to remove the horses. Witness' boy nn one occasion up the manure imder bis window. , James Cairns, Sanitary Inspector, stated that he had t'vir,v.> received communications from Mrs Wimsett about the bail state of the yard. John Hil!, who lives next door to the plaintiff, stated that the defendant's yard was in a vcy dirty condition until qtrito recently. Witness had seen horses in the yard at night several times. The yard could bo railed off at a cost of a few shillings, without any material loss of ground. Mr Hollincs said the action was merely a neighbourly quarrel. He applied for a non-suit on the ground that the nuisance complained of wou'd not affect any man in ordinary health. Mr Pownall opposed the non-suit. His Worship reserved his decision on the points raised.