Star.
London, England, 1816-09-14 00:00:00

LANCASTER ASIZES, REPT.7.
CURIOUS TRIAL TO ABATE A NUISANCE. •
THOMPSON W. HARMS.
Mr. Seaneerr stated the case. The plaintiff is a
cheesemonger. and defendant a farrier, in the town
of Preston. A new street was 1 dely budt in that town
called Lune-street, composed of respectable houses,
and inhabited by respectable people. Among these
were a clergyman, an attorney, the plaintiff, and se-
veral other individuals of wealth and consideration in
the place. The defendant likewise purchased a por-
tion of the ground in the vicinity of this street, and
built upon it, as he had a right to do. He built first
a small house for keeping a cow, alum eight yards
from the back court of the plaintiff. To this erection
the plaintiff could have no possible objection, and he
made none ; but he was rather surprised, when in
April last lie saw a chimney rising over this cow-
house, and still more surprised and annoyed when
smoke began to issue from it, and hammers to play
within it—in short, when he saw the cow house con.
'cued into a smithy, involving his premises in smoke,
and stunning his family with noise. Nothing could
be conceived a greater annoyance than the incessant
din of this forge. or the. volumes of smoke that issue
from it, blackening every thing around it, and foicing
the plaintiff to have the linen exposed to dry in his
yard often to be washed over again, and his windows
shut when he would choose to have theM open. 'there
could be no•doubt that the law would consider such
a building so placed and so used as a nuisance.—
Every man has a right to 'enjoy his or property, but
he must use it with a reference to the rights of others.
Society could not exist without such a principle. So.
ciety is held together in a sort of compromise of mu-
tual reitraint and compensation. If a man, in the ex-
ercise of his rights of property, builds his house and
establishes; himself in a particular situation, no other
man bas a right to destroy his comforts, or to molest
his posgessioo, by bringi an offensive trade into his
immediate neighbour ..... If, on the other hand,
the offensive trade is established first, no man has a
right to order its removal. The only question in law
is the propriety of establishment; and it either abates
the nuisance, or permits its continuance, according to
this principle. The law does not consult a man's
whims, or caprices, or imaginary wants; but it al:
lows no invasion of his real substantial comforts, nor
any exercise of the rights of property, however just in
other respects, that diminishes them. There could be
no doubt from the evidence he would produce, that
the plaintiff was seriously aggrieved : several of the
other inhabitants of the street likewise felt the injury
'as their own. The defendant, accustomed to such
noises, might not be so sensible of the disturbance
they give, as those who reside near the Falls of Nia-
gara are said not to be all sensible to their deafening
roar; but the plaintiff in the former case, as strangers
in the latter, must feel the annoyance intolerable.—
Till it could be proved that smoke, noise, and dust,
in their most offensive degrees, and brought as near'
as possible to a man's dwelling, were not a nuisance,
so long must a smithy, situate like the one in ques-
tion, be declared a nuisance, and entitle the plaintiff
to a verdict. He asked no damages—he merely
asked a verdict, to remove the annoyance of which'
he so justly complained. The Learned Counsel then
called-several witneses to prove the nuisance; both of
the plaintiff's own family and from among his neigh.
boars. His servant deposed, that the clothes hung
out to dry in the yard were often so covered with
smoke and dust that it was necessary to, wash them
over again, and that she was frequently obliged to,
shut the windows to exclude such offensive annoy.
ances. She stated farther, that the noise was intole-
rable, and often made the floor and windows shake.
Several of Mr. Thompson's neighbours confirmed
this statement, and also added their own complaints
to his. •
. .

Mr. Wtrlamas, for the defendant, denied that this
smithy could be termed in law a nuisance. He would
bring witnesses to prove that they did not consider it
as a nuisance ; that the noise was by no means what
it was represented to be; and that fewer coats; coals
of .a better quality, and yielding less smoke, were
burnt in this smithy than on any kitchen or parlour fire
of the neighbourhood. This insignificant smithy had
been dignified with the name of forgee and the noise of
this forge had been talked of as it Vulcan and his
swarthy brothers incessantly plied their thundering
hammers within it; but it would surprise the Jury
when he chewed them that all this mighty noise was
produced, not by a congregation of giants, but brthe
serveless arm of a boy Of 14. When the noise and
the smoke of this little smithy were made the sub-
ject of complaint,- it was forgotten that they were in
the small town of Preston, and within 800 yards of
the plaintiff's house, no less than nine steam-engines
and four foundries, which really did send forth vo-
lumes of sound and smoke, that were formidable and
annoying. These, indeed, might with some propriety
be declared nuisances; but it was difficult to describe
what a nuisance was in law, or to determine that de-
gree of discomfort which amounted to one. Much
would depend 11.0 what people considered as the
eisentials of their comfort or enjoyments. Some
t4ought a fine prospect necessary; and according to
them it would be a nuisance to cut down a tree in your
park that added to the beauty of their landscape, or
to build a wall that obstructed in the least their view
...some would declare a school a nuisance, because it
had noisy boys; others a joiner's shop ; others a
staans-engine, and so on. But when people deter-
mine to live in towns, they must subm't to the incon-
venience of towns; they are not to expect, amid the
nose' and smoke and dust of a manufacturing place,
tbs same quietness and retirement as in the country
—.they MUM not hope to ,1111jOr in Manchester or
Preston the same plod' air .as on the site of W-
eenier Csstle,'.nr on the top of Skiddaw, The
Led Couael called several witnesses for the de-
fetralant, with the desigi of :hewing that the smithy
was not- considered as a nuisance—that the noise
was not distressing that fewer coals, and coals of a
r qualitY were burnt in it. than in many private
houses—that the pliintiff himself did not consider it
as a grievance necessary to be remedied by lase; till
the defendant had refused to oblige bim by allowing
to fix his joists its defendant's wall ; and that Abe
foandries end stream-etginesuf the town were nuisan-
ces, which, if the plaintiff *allowed, took away all
ground of oomplaint against this twang smithy. It
appeared mach in favour *1 the plaintiff that all the
wingless cAlettn .dipprovo the offensive nature of
tba smoke and noise lived at t gnaw &tuft tima