The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1909-08-12
ZINC PI- Ant not NUS IN i

o respect the plaintiffs are not alone
: for in every growing community there
e must of necdssity be more or less Of
i annoyance and inconvenience res,bt
n and which necessity and public de-
!. mand require each and all of us to
n patietly endure:
{ In reasoning from the facts In this
case, can do no better than quote
!, the language OF Judge Holt In the
, case Of Powell vs.. Bentley, etc. 80
lw. Va. sos.
!, Every man has the exclusive do
minion and the right to the full and
/. exclusive enjoyment of his own prop
Ierty. to do with 1t as he pleases. His
nelghbor has the same right over his
own property. Hence It follows as
the duty of each to SO use his own
as not to injure that of the other,
each ones duty qualities his own
right and creates corresponding
right in the other.
| But this duty must be taken with
Qualifications, for. in the nature OF
things and OF society, 1t Is not reas-
enable that every annoyance should
constitute an injury such as the law
will remedy or prevent. One may
therefore make reasonable use of
his right. though 1t may create some
annoyance or Inconvenience to his
nelghbor.
SO, also. public policy and gener-
al convenience require that on this
head something more shall be con-
coded to useful and beneficial work
than to useless and idle amusements
but where this line of difference is to
be drawn can only be determined by
the facts OF each particular case.
According to our settled notions
and habits, there are convenient
places-one for the home, one for the
factory; but as often happens, the
two must be so near each other as to
cause some Inconvenience. The law
can not take notice of such inconyen-
fence, II slight or reasonable. all
things considered but applies the
common-sense doctrine that the par
ties must give and take. live and let
liye; for here extreme rights are not
enforceable rlghts-at any rate. not
by Injunction. See Blsh. Cont. Sec.
AIS and cases iited.
But the term convenient place,
does not mean the one best for the
profit and convenience OF the owner
of the offensive factory, but the one
where 1t shall cause no actionable
injury to others. One nuisance does
not Justify another: still 1t NAV be
taken as one of the surrounding cir
cumstances to be considered in de-
termining whether or not the other
be q nuisance.
In fixing TIE standard by which 20
has less right, but because It is i'm
possible in practice for the law to ex-
tend to him exceptional immunity or
protection. Therefore, we must take
as our standard the normal man; the
one of ordinary sensibility; of the or
binary habits of living; the plain,
/ "" psoP'e, WIG nuke UP tne
great mass OF our busy world. II this
should lead to hardship in particular
cases. such as sickness, practical con-
lVenience makes 1t impossible to have
ANY other criterion. In such cases we
must appear to the humanity and good
will OF our neighbor. rather than to
any supposed enforceable right of our
own.
so 1ar the subject has been dis
cussed on grounds common to suit
al law Tor damages, and suit in
equity to forbid, abate or restrain.
Isut these remedies differ not less in
the mode or relief than in effective
ness and in other important particu-
iars In the suit at law for damages.
II the case is made out, damages. ac-
lcording to the injury proven, are
awarded as a matter ofright, and not
OF discretion. But often this is only
halfway remedy. leading some
\ times to endless litigation md IN IRE.