Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1906-10-31
FROM LAW COURT.

In. IN Case OF whitrnore VS..
Brown a. Gilley.
-. law court has handed down re-
n the Hancock county case OF
whitmore, in equity, versus
n. Brown and Pedrick D. Gilley,
.,,..inr the bill with the costs OF the
!, bearing, but without costs Of appeal
r,,hout prejudice to any other REM
yhs reseript, drawn by Justice Emery,
IS follows;
except in extreme cases. the court win
.,,reise les equity powers 10 compel he
- az existing structures alleged to be
N,..rea. but will permit the plaintiff TO
.a,,sdles at Law, which In this State are
ar. adequate and complete"
yar viii the court intervene with its
~ movers to abate nuisance which the
's..,s has long tolerated, but will require
Il such case to establish his claim at law
Nor win the court sbjoin the proposed
s.,,on Of structure which may be nuis-
puless the right threatened by snch
I..n-.ure is clear and the fact already estab-
{,.s,d tina, the proposed structure viii In
! 5ure such right; otherwise, the plaintiff
- srst establish his claim at law.
| The mere fact that structures are. or
II, he erected and maintained as such on
|, "a Without the license required by statute
..o,Jisnce. does not make them outlaws, to
II ,vtully destroyed by any one, or ahated
!, ,se private suit Of any person.
Aiso the mere fact that structures upon
IL. land Of the person maintaining them les
=. the commercial value OF other lands, or
=, endowment Of them by the owners. does
=, make such structure subject TO abatement
svtorcc or by suit.
. No Que eau lawfully erect or maintain a
xsar, upon his own fats upon tide water
without license from the municipal officers
a The town AS provided In chapter 4, sections
q and 20 Of the Revised statues inclusive, bat
/, 40 erected aud maintained, the wharf can
"a, be abated except 81 the suit of the public
4, .ou,e private person showing that II In
,riuxes some particular right OF his own, dis
tlpct from bis share In this public right,
That such wharf Is unsightfy aud OBJ
stfaess the view from m adjoining residence
10, and thereby reduces the value Of the resi-
aescs, does not infringe any legal right Of the
owner or tenant of such lot, and does not give
hin any right to an abatement BY suit or
Otherwise.
8. That the wharf cbs,ructs thu navigation
or boating facilities on the tid1 water To front
oi an adjoining residence lot Is an infringe
men, Of public right only, and does not give
the owner or tenant Of such lot right to an
sbatemen,, even though the wharf thereby
lessons the value Of the lot.
D. Whore = lot OF land borders on tide
water, the owner or tenant has the right Of
access to, and departure from. the lot by
water, and such right Is q private right
peculiar to such owner or tenant distinct from
the public right of nayig ttioa, and u the un-
licensed wharf obstruets such right of access
and departure. II Is TO that extent a nuisance
which can be absted at the suit Of such owner
OF tenant.
10. In this case, no infringement OF any
private legal right OF the plaintiff by the un-
licensed wharf Ia shown. except possibly the
right Of access to. and departure from. her
land BY water. The infringement Of that
right, hoysssr, Is not SO clearly established
IS to authorize the court to issue an injune-
ton, even against proposed extension OF the
wharf. Hence the plaintiff must be rcmitted
to the usual legal remedies.