FACTORY BESIDE HOUSE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 75, 10 March 1933, Page 5

FACTORY BESIDE HOUSE

ALLEGED NUISANCE. NAPIER CASE DISMISSED. The hearing of the case brought by Frank Peat (Mr J. Mason), who sought an injunction against Albert Anthony Hastings and the A. A. Hastings, Ltd., to restrain defendants from the continuance of an alleged nuisance, was continued in the Supreme Court at Napier yesterday afternoon, Mr M. It. Grant appeared on behalf of defendants. Frederick William Ansin, a greengrocer, who called at the Peats’ house from time to time, gave contributory evidence as to the nuisance created by the machinery. Lucy Peat, wife of plaintiff, surveyed in her testimony the circumstances already disclosed by her husband. Three further witnesses were called and the plaintiff’s case then closed. Mr Grant said that bis client was prepared to respond to any reasonable request. Undoubtedly, when the plant, was first installed the duco plant must, have caused some annoyance, and contributed to Mrs Peat’s neurasthenic condition, but when at the instance of two borough inspectors the inadequacy of the vent was pointed out Hastings hud a larger vent, with an internal fan, put in.

Defendant Hastings admitted the installation of a small duco spray in May 1931, the fumes from which blew on to the fence between the two properties. After complaint a small fourinch pipe was placed in position, and a few days later a sanitary inspector suggested a pipe of larger dimension should be inserted. This was done. Shortly after another inspector called, and upon his suggestion a taller vent was inserted.

The plant was operated from Joly 1931 till September 1932 without complaint from the Peats. On September 3 defendant received a letter from Peat., calling attention to the smell. Witness replied in terms which purported to show he would endeavour to meet the Peats in every reasonable way. Up till last Saturday the average running time of the plant was 83 minutes each day, of which 20 minutes would be taken up by the spray compressor. He did not think the amylacetate in the duco was toxic in effect. After putting to Hastings a number of questions His Honour said lie did not wish to hear any further evidence as to noise, for he said he was quite satisfied that the equipment he saw that morning was incapable of making any more noise than he heard. “I don’t believe those witnesses who say they heard those fearsome noises,” he commented. In addition he thought that since the duco plant was shifted to another position it was pure imagination on the part of those who swore the fumes were still manifest. Walter Albert Hastings, son of the previous witness, said he did all the spraying work, but did not wear a sk. He suffered no ill effects from spray. In his opinion whether or ... r wind' were present outside the shed, tie fact, of the fumes being lighter Than air would necessitate them being carried away. Ernest Allan Wood, inspector of factories, said he found upon inspection the fluming outside the building reached the eaves only, and in view of the complaint made by Peat, witness suggested the extension of the fluming to bring it above the highest level of either building. Within a fortnight this was carried into effect. Between the two buildings he could not distinguish a disagreeable odour. His Honour, in giving judgment lor the defendants, said that no doubt that from an aesthetic point of view plaintiffs had a grievance, but the law allowed a man to use his own property as he pleased, provided he did not interfere with the reasonable comfort of his neighbours. His Honour said he did not think the plaintiffs had , any ground for complaint. He would therefore dismiss the application for an injunction, with costs £2l and disbursements.