Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NUISANCE ALLEGED

STICKS FROM GUM TREES. NEIGHBOURS IN COURT. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, June 7. A substantial bundle of bluegum kindling wood on the floor ot tne Supreme Court suggested something unusual in the nature of the proceedings. The bundle was an exhibit produced ill support of. the claim of a Alt. Albert resident for damages allegedly suffered tliorugli the dropping on his root of sticks anti nuts tromlii-s neighbour’s gum tree. Plaintiff was Francis Cornelius Alulloy, retired mill manager, Mount Albert, and be brought his claim against "William Gwennan Drummond, school teacher, Atount Albert. Plaintiff complained that, from a large gum tree near the boundary, th‘ dropping of leaves, bark, small branches and nuts on bis roof caused loss of sleep and mental suffering and hiuUied tne gutters and spouting of Ins house. He claimed £IOO damages and an injunction to compel defendant to abate the nuisance. Defendant replied that the tree was growing on the property at the time he purchased it in 192.8, and that none of it overhung plaintiff’s property. Ho denied that plaintiff was entitled to relief. Counsel said the noise on the roof caused by tho tree was having an injurious effect on the health of plaintiff’s family and was detrimental to their use and enjoyment of their own dwelling. Mr Justice Fair said he could understand that this type of inconvenience was very annoying, but counsel had to satisfy him that the law prohibited the growing of a tree in this way. Defendant’s counsel said that, if plaintiff could satisfy His Honour that the law gave him right of action, they need not trouble His Honour any further. His Honour: You contend that plaintiff has no remedy in law. Counsel: That is so. Ilis Honour said lie would take time to consider the question of law, and would give his decision on that before proceeding to hear evidence, if that should he necessary.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS19390608.2.92

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 160, 8 June 1939, Page 9

Word Count
320

NUISANCE ALLEGED Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 160, 8 June 1939, Page 9

NUISANCE ALLEGED Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 160, 8 June 1939, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert