Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-03-19

abatement of any alleged nuisance 10
the directions In the notice served by
it, ii must be assumed in the absence
OF any evidence to the contrary that
such Is the only action contemplated
by tho defendants.
The almost unlimited range OF human
ingenuity in the present age of scientific
discovery seems to be equal to render
ing almost any trade innocuous in
almost any locality, and the courts
recognize this fact in the modern rul-
ings as to what trades or uses of prop
erty are per SO, or ever prima facie
nuisances; ard the Board OF Health
OF the city OF Wilmington havc no
authority to prevent any inhabitant
from carrying on any lawful business
not necessarily nuisance in such
manner as not to be public nuisance.
Nor do the defendants claim that the
compliments business cannot be car
ried on in its present plant In such u
manner as not to be nuisance detri-
mental to the public health, and their
counsel upon the argument OF this
motion insisted that it was not the
desire OF the defendant to close com
plainant'a works or to cause them to
remove their business from its present
location.
Complainant alleges in its bill that
II not restrained the defendants will
'abate the emanation of odors and
gases from its factory; and IL said
board should be allowed to interfere in
any waywth the gases or other chemical
reactions or effects, necessary as they
are to the successful prosecution of the
legitimate business carried on by it
at that place, it would result practi-
cahly in the absolute destruction OF Its
plant, which would be useless for any
other purpose and loss would be en-
tailed for which il could not be COM
pensRted in any suit for damages. "
To this allegation the defendants
reply in their answer that "if not re-
strained IL would have taken such
action as it in its judgment deemed
best, acting always under the strict
authority Of the law and keeping always
within the strict limits Of its authority I;
and that the complainant has full,
ample and complete remedy at law for
any illegal or unwarranted action on
the part Of the defendants. F."
But the Court for the reasons already
given will not grant u preliminary in
| junction which would restrain defend
ants from abating the emanation of
odors or gases from complHinant's fac
tory, and it Is not therefore necessary
for the Court to pass upon the question
whether the complainant would or
would not have an adequate legal
remedy, il such action by the de-
PENDANTS should cause the practical
destruction OF it's plant. Nor would it
be proper for the Court to discuss here
the questions that might arise for the
courts of law TO determine in an action
for damages brought by the complain
ant for the result OF any interference
with its plant by the defendants and
which might be held by the Court to
be unreasonable or unlawful.
In the absence Of any evidence to the
contrary, it cannot be assumed by this
Court that the defendants will act other
wise than as defined By their notice and
alleged in their answer.
| Other points which were ipgeniously
and ably urged by the learned counsel
for the complaiuants it ia not necessary
for me 10 consider, because they are
| dependant upon the points already de
cided.
| will deny the motion for pre-.
liminary. Injunction and discharge the
rule in this case.
The Chancellor read the decision in
the county court room, the county courts
having adjourned until Monday soon
after they we're opened. Judges Grubb
and Maryil were on the bench during
| the reading. Chief Justice Lore and
Judge Cullen were among the listeners
within the bar Of the court. There
was a goodly attendance of lawyers
among them being Lewis q. Vandegrift
and II. II. Ward, who represented the
Liebig company, and Horace Greeley
Knowles and City Solicitor Robert G.
Hartman, who represented the Hoard
Of Health. Attorney General White,
Judge kall, DIR. a. f. Frantz and
Registrar Colquhoun Of the Board OF
Health were also present.
MAY REMOVE THE PLANT.
A representative OF the Liebig Manu-
l r 4