The Evening critic., 1882-10-23
An Ahaurd Pefiiian

The case of certain citizens against Mr..
Frank X. Ward, the dairyman and milk
yender, suggests some reflections that are
not far from startling. Mr.. Wards cstab.
lishment is located on Third street, near
ID, a quiet neighborhood of residences and
boarding-houses. Complaint is made by
these that Mr.. Wards establishment is
nuisance in their midst, in consequence of
the noise made by his wagons and cans at
an early hour in the morning, whereby the
slumbers of his neigRbors are disturbed,
&C., and upon this complaint an injunction
has been asked to restrain Mr.. Ward from
the further conduct of his business in that
locality-in other words, to shut up his es-
tablishment and force him to find another
place of business.
OF course we cannot apprehend that such
a preposterous petition will be granted by
any court of law. The peculiar conditions
under which Mr.. Ward carries on his busi-
ness may make his establishment an an
noyance to his neighbors; but there is q
vast difference between an annoyance and
nuisance. 1t is law here that person
having place of business may protest
against the occupation Of contiguous or
adjoining building by any other person for
the purpose of carrying on an immoral
traffic, or traffic in explosive or inaam-
mable matter which would increase the
danger, and with it, the cost Of insuring
his property, or manufacturing business
requiring steam power or involving the use
of heavy machinery calculated to cause
vibration of party wall by its motion, or
business involving odors or exhalations Of
fensive to the smell or injurious to health,
together with other reasons of similar
nature.
But in all these cases the fact of danger
or damage must be specific. A mere alle-
cation of inconvenience or general annoy
ance, unaccompanicd by any positive dan
ger to adjoining property or damage to the
salubrity Of the neighborhood, will not do
We do not understand that Mr.. Wards
. neighbors allege in their petition that the
noise of his wagons and cans at an early
hour endangers either the security Of ad-
joining property or the health of its occu-
pants. 1t simply "disturbs." That is all
Now, in view Of these facts, it seems tc
us that plain talk is necessary. Some days
ob" ""NBo iiabhci Biuhtcu du olucf VI 10
straint against the firm of Schneider & Co..
founders, on the complaint of q Mr.. Reah
owner of adjoining property. The COM
plant in this case was that of danger from
fire and damage from vibration, and there
fore came under the law-which, by the
way, is sufficiently oppressive under tn,
most liberal construction. But no sucl
theory applies to the Ward case, and w
deem it utterly impossible for any judge il
his right mind to issue an order of re
straint upon the frivolous plea that tn
noise of wagons and the rattle o
milk cans "disturb the slumbers'
ofpeople who want to lie in bed, perhap
because they themselves waste half tn
night in amusement or dissipation. Th
fact that such petition can be made o
that lawyer can be found to stand sponso
for 1t is itself sign of very serious socia
Generalization. We hope that Mr.. Ward
prosecutors will be sat down upon with OF
emplary severity.