New Britain herald., 1915-11-23
MEEHAN IS VICTOR IN
 SUIT FOR INJUNCTION
Judge Futile Rules His Stoneyard Is Not a
 Nuisance.

In the case of John Schmidt vs. John F. Meehan. which has been at- tracting no little attention in this city for some time past, Judge Jo- seph P. Futile in the superior court this morning handed down a decision in favor of the defendant, MT. Mee-
 han. By this ruling MT. Schmidt
 must pay the entire cost of the legal
 proceedings.
 Many weeks ago MT. Schmidt
 brought civil action against Mir. Nee
 han. He retained Lawyer Frederick
 B. Hungerford and the writ, which
 was served by Constable Fred Wrinkle,
 set forth at great length that MT.
 Meehan's stone bur1ness located at
 the corner of Union and Clark streets
 is nuisance. For being subjected
 to this nuisance, MT. Schmidt claimed
 damages of $3,00O and asked that a permanent injunction be issued re- straining MT. Meehan from operating his stone yard in the future. MT. Meehan was represented by Attorney George w. Klett and Judge James T. Meslxill.
 In making known his decision, Judge Futile remarked that the stone cutters business has always been con- ducted in 8 proper manner and he had been shown sufficient evidence to satisfy his own mind that it is not nuisance. His memoranda of de- cision follows in full:
 This action is brought claiming an injunction restraining an alleged nui- sance and for damages.
 Plaintiffs counsel Ypon the trial stated that the first prayer for relief was the one really desired and upon the evidence it is the only one which can be considered for it was not shown that the plaintiff had been damaged in any sum whatever, either in the rental or sale value of his prop erty. On the contrary, the upper tenement of plaintiffs house is still occupied by the same tenant who resided there before the alleged nui- sance was installed and at an in creased rental. It further appears that the plaintiff has been constantly his asking price for his property and that he has had an op- portunity within the past year to sell his property for more than it was worth.
 ''These facts are of much signifi- canoe upon the question of an injunc- ton and the claim practically re- solves itself into one for re- | straining order compelling the de- | fendant to discontinue the noise oc- | casioned by the use of pneumatic l hammers or drills. This noise is more or less offensive to plaintiffs wife who has been an invalid for twenty-six years
 "The defendants business is a legitimate one and his plant is equipped with modern appliances and is conducted in proper manner. It is in a somewhat thickly populated section of the city of New Britain, not far from the business section and from the factories. More or less smoke, noise and odors from sources other than the defendants plant are noticeable at the plaintiffs residence. The inconvenience and nuisance oc- casioned the plaintiff by the operation of the defendants plant is not of such a character as to entitle him 70 he relief sought.
 This is especially true in view of .he fact that the defendant, before moving to this location, conducted d similar business in the vicinity, with he operation of which the plaintiff vas thoroughly familiar, and not his familiarity with this operation the plaintiff not only es ablishing his business at the present ocation and making@an investment of some $S,000 or 5000 thereat.
 Judgment is rendered for the de-