Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1899-02-10
CHURCH WINS.
Judge Coultrap's Decision in the In
junction Suit Brought Against
the City By the Baptist
Church.


several days has been engaging the at
tention of the Court, on Thursday
morning. He found for the plaintiff
and his reasons for SO doing were as
follows
The question as announced last eve
ming, is an important one. 1t is i'm
portant not only to the city, but also
to the property owners in the vicinity
of the location OF the proposed plant;
not only to the individual property
owners, but also to the owners of the
church property, which is located in
close proximity to the proposed loca-
ton. The evidence disclosed the fact
shot the City Council has made it
necessary to enlarge Lne present elec-
trio power plant and that In order to
do SO 1t will be necessary to change the
plant from its present location in the,
City Hail building to a location on the
outside and adjoining the Baptist
church property. This lot is owned by
the city. 1t will be cheaper, probably,
for the city to erect plant on that
property than it will to purchase To-
cation elsewhere. This seems to be
the main reason for locating the plant
upon this location rather than some
other part OF the city. That lot be-
longing to the city, it has right to
devote 1t to any use 1t may see fit; pro-
vided it does not interfere with the
property rights Of others or with their
enjoyment and use Of their property
An interference must not be triyal,but
it must be substantial that ", the
placing Of the plant upon this lot must
be substantial injury to the property
of the persons adjoining and the use
of their property. Until 1t does that.
the action of the Council In placing the
plant upon this lot would not be un-
lawful But the moment the placing Of
the plant there and the operation of 1t
would become Injurious to their enjoy
ment and use of their property, then
II would become unlawful and would
come within the definition OF the law
as defined in our Circuit Court deeis-
ions. There are many definitions of
the term nuisance.
The petition was filed by the First
Regular Baptist Church and numerous
property owners in the vicinity of the
location of the proposed plant. The
claim is made in the petition that the
location and operation Of the plant
will not only result In an injury to the
property In that locality, but also to
the enjoyment OF the property and
comfort OF the property owners In the
enjoyment of their homes and proper
ty. The petition alleges different in
furious effects which it is claimed will
result from the operation of the plant.
The plant, not being in existence, of
course it Is impossible to say just
what the effect OF the plant will be-,
and therefore 1t has been necessary to
judge OF the eeffcts OF the plant pro-
posed to be erected there, by the effect
Of the corporation at the place where
it is now located. and of similar plants
located elsewhere throughout the
state and city.
One injurious effect which it is
claimed will result from the operation
of the plant there, which would be
discomfort and inconvenience to the
property owners, and interfere with
cheir enjoyment OF their property and
nome, is the sound and noise of the
machinery. That mas been very fully
described by the witnesses, and while
It is probably one of the least serious
Of the effects complained Of, the evil
dence satisfies my mind that this buzz
zing and whizzing sound OF the ma
chinery is to some extent an inconven-
ience or discomfort to the property
owners in that neighborhood. am
not prepared to say that that would be
cause for injunction. Whether or not
it is one Of the annoyances or incon-
veniences which property owners in
the city must put up with in order to
have the benefits of modern improve
ments in the way OF electric lights and
street railways. is a serious question;
and / am inclined to think that II that
were all, the injunction ought not to
be granted.
Another injurious effect which, it is
claimed, will result from the operation
Of the proposed plant, is the vibration
caused by the rapid revolutions Of the
machinery. The evidence shows that
these vibrations are felt from the op-
Grafton Of the present plant, and also
from the other plant, the light plant
across the street, from one hundred to
two hundred feet from the plant,
.hese vibrations have been varlously
described as to the amount and num-
ber of effects resulting from these vi
bratioas. | think all the witnesses
testified that they experienced the vi |
brations, all of the witnesses who live !
IN the vicinity of the present plant.
Some of them say they are not annoy
ed to any considerable extent, but the |
testimony is that they are annoying to
The people, and, in fact, am unable to
see how 1t could be otherwise from the
descriptions that have been given of
these vibrations and their effects up