ALLEGED NUISANCE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 74, 9 March 1933, Page 6

ALLEGED NUISANCE

INJUNCTION ASKED FOB. SUPREME COURT ACTION. Frank Peat (Mr. J. Mason) sought aa injunction in the Supreme Court at Napier this morning against Albert Anthony Hastings and the A. A. Hastings, Ltd., to restrain defendants from the continuance of an alleged nui»anee. Mr. M. R. Grant appeared in behalf of defendants. Mr. Justice Blair heard the pleadings, and when the facts as set out had been narrated by Mr.’ Mason, the Court adjourned so that His Honour and the parties might visit the site. The amended statement of claim relate! that the defendants were the owners and occupiers of a workshop and premises on the sect- r. immediately contiguous to the dwelling occupied for many years as a residence by the plaintiff. Both properties have • frontage to Kennedy road, Napier. The defendant, Hastings, continued the claim, was by virtue of his share holdings and his position as managing director of the A. A. Hastings Company, in control of that company, and as such was the owner of the spray plant an! machinery under his controL He had represented in his statement of defence that he would take steps to mitigate the nuisance created in his workshop. Up to the year 1931 this land was occupied by Hastings for residential purposes, but since then the defendants had erected a factory and installed machinery. The operations of the company constantly caused offensive smells, fumes an! noises to come from the factory, thereby rendering plaintiff’s house uncomfortable to live in, and seriously impairing of the health of the plaintiff’s wife. In addition, plaintiff claimed that his dwelling house und land had seriously deteriorated in value. The plaintiff had’ in writing asked defendants to cease an! abate the nuisance, but they had not done so. Plaintiff thereforee sought tho issue of an injunction.

The statement of defence was • general denial of the allegations relating to the nuisance created by defeudant’s machinery and plant. Frank Peat, a blacksmith, said in evidence that for 13 years he had lived in his house on Kennedy road. He had lived till the earthquake, and when, after this occurrence, he returned to Napier on March 10, 1931, he discovered that Hastings, who previously lived next door, had erected a shed on the lawn in front of the Hastings’ home. Shortly after the erection of a workshop the plaintiff and his wife suffered a good deal from the vibration from the workshop, where Hastings was manufacturing radiators. Almost directly opposite the Peat’s meat safe was a vent pipe which exuded duco fumes, obliging the Peats to remove all foodstuffs from the safe.

Mary Ethel Elizabeth Rhodes. ■ daughter of the plaintiff, said she had lived for six years in Napier, but had spent most of her time with her mother. Since the earthquake her mother had been subject to nervoug trouble largely arising, she thought, from the noise an! fumes coming from tho factory. (Proceeding).