PRINTING WORKS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 131, 30 November 1939, Page 15

PRINTING WORKS

ALLEGED NUISANCE

INJUNCTION SOUGHT

FLAT-DWELLERS COMPLAIN

Allegations that several residents in Mayfair Flats, The Terrace, were prevented from sleeping or awakened in the night by the noise from the machinery, including four printingpresses, in the recently-completed building occupied by the "New Zealand Free Lance" were made in the Supreme Court today, when Mayfair, Ltd., sought a restraining injunction against New Zealand Properties, Ltd., owner of the land on which the "Free Lance" building stands, and H. E. Geddis and Co., Ltd., proprietors of the periodical. The case is expected to last some days. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) is presiding. Mr. R. E. Tripe is appearing for the plaintiff, Mr. G. Samuel (Nelson) for the first defendant, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for the second defendant. . Mr. Tripe said the plaintiff's property consistec" of two blocks of flats, the ■front block having been completed in 1929 and the back block in January, 1938. They contained twenty-one and twenty-nine flats respectively. Eleven flats in the front block had bedrooms facing the "FreeLance" building, but only one flat in the back block had a bedroom facing in that direction.. The new building was 24 feet from the front block and 18. feet from the back block.

When the directors of the plaintiff company heard that the "Free Lance" would be next door they were very disturbed, and triedby correspondence to prevent the nuisance they foresaw. They wrote to the Wellington City Council asking it to refuse a permit for the erection of the building, but the permit was granted. As early as April 8 of last year, before the building was started, they wrote to the first defendant, who replied to the letter of protest that a\l' precautions would be taken against noise. Printing was started about the first week in July, and towards the end of July tenants started complaining to the secretary of Mayfair, Ltd. At that time various matters were complained of other.than the noise, but those had been rectified. Altogether six tenants had complained of the noise. There was no doubt that the position had improved since early in the proceedings, said • Mr. Tripe, but the nuisance was still bad. A number of tenants had threatened to leave if the noise were not remedied, but fortunately for the company the Exhibition and other factors contributing to a shortage of houses and flats had made it impossible for tenants to find other accommodation. The noise, was most noticeable in the evening, throughout the night.' and in. the early morning: Three eight-hour shifts were worked, and printing was liable to take place continuously. An injunction to restrain the second defendant from printing altogether was1 not wanted, but merely an injunction preventing the printing at certain times.- ■•■ • y

His Honour; The most you would be entitled to is ah injunction to prevent continuance. Of the nuisance, if itexists^ Y'bif might be able to do that in various ways without stopping printing at all- ■•

It had -been' said,:■ continued Mr. Tripe, that if three eight-hour shifts could not be) worked the "Free Lance" would go out of business. The plaintiff did not want the business to close: it bore no malice or grudge, and the defendants, subject to the original fault of. continuing with the building, had done all in their power' to minimise the noise, and had done their best to get a sound-proof building.

His Honour: If you can show substantial nuisance you are entitled to have it abated. The mjsre fact that it may be inconvenient to*'the proprietors of the paper or establishment is no answer. .'•. ...

The hearing of evidence is proceeding. ■ , . : .^__ _' • ■ • _ .