ABOUT A NUISANCE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 117, 19 May 1910, Page 7

ABOUT A NUISANCE.

HOUSE AND STABLE. MOTION FOB RETRIAL REFUSED. Judgment was delivered to-day by Mr. Justice Chapman in the case 1 readwell v, Wellington Dairy Company. This was a motion for a new trial on several grounds, chiefly, misdirection of jury, excessive damages, and judgment against weight of evidence. His Honour said he had disposed of several points at the hearing of the motion, but there remained one to be considered. Plaintiff's counsel had shaped her case as if the fact of the defendants' committing a nuisance, extending over a period, entitled her to damages based oil permanent loss of so much of the capital value of her property. He had made it clear that this was not the proper way" to consider the question of damages in the case of a remediable nuisance, but it was still complained that the damages were excessive. The nuisance consisted of smells proceeding from a stable, and the conduct complained of lasted about a year, and there was evidence that th© rent of plaintiff's houses depreciated to the extent of £1 per week during that period. The defendants .then parted with the stable, but "there was evidence that it emitted smells at later dates. The verdict was for £104, and it was urged for defendant that the figure showed that the jury had awarded plaintiff a sum equal to the whole year's value of the property, without deducting the rent actually received. This was not, however, the necessary conclusion. The rule was that such damages should be awarded as appeared to naturally result from a wrong which had been allowed to continue in an intermittent form for a year. Where the committing of a nuisance over a prolonged period liad given a dwellinghouse a bad reputation, damage was caused which was not at once stopped by stopping the nuisance, and it would be natural to attribute to the wrongdoer some of the subsequent depreciation, oven though he had ceased to do wrong. The [ damages awarded were, in his Honour's I opinion, somewhat large, but it was very undesirable that a new trial should be granted to assess damages, unless they were manifestly excessive. He could not say that the damages in this case were such as to show that the jury had acted improperly. The motion would, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Judgment would be entered for the plaintiff for the amount assessed. Costs of the motion, £5 ss, were allowed to the plaintiff. * Mr. P- J. O'Kegan appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. A. Blair for the defendants.