AN ALLEGED NUISANCE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12274, 11 October 1910, Page 5

AN ALLEGED NUISANCE.

COURT ASKED TO INTERVENE

.MELBOURNE Sept. 28. An action, was commenced m line Banco Court to-day, before Mr justice a'Beckett, m- wliich , it was claimed that tlie ringing oi a church bell was a nuisance, ana the Court was asked to intervene. Plaintiffs were Robert J. Haodon, ol I "AhselmjV Glenferrip street, Cauineld. architect, and his wife, Ada Haddoni and defendants were Rev. F.,-. Lynch ot Carnarvon road, Caulfield, ana Li.' B. Empson, and others. Plaintiffs, m their writ, said that adjoining their house was St. Paul's Church of England., The defendant, Mr Lynch, was the incumbent of the church, and the other defendants were guardians. Defendants caused to be rung a bell m the church; particularly on' Sundays, which. made a loud jarring sound, ana greatly interrupted, disturbed, and an-) noyed plaintiffs m the peaceable possession of their dwelling-house. Plaintiffs and others had requested defendants to desist, but they refused to do so. Plaintiffs asked for jan injunction restraining defendants froni "ringing the bell so as to be a riuisarice, and also claimed £5 damages. * ' The defence was that the ringing of the bell was not a nuisance. In explaining the base, Mr Starke said the church m question was a wooden building, .with - a $Ivanisd 'iron roof. The bell was hung iii an angle m the roof, and gathered sound from the roof. It was not a large bell, but its sound was a very discordant one. Arthur S. Crouch, accountant, said he was told that the guardians were once requested to stop ridging because an old lady was. dead, and they said that if the old lady was dead it did riot matter^ as she couldn't hear it. (Laughter.) Arthur Hedbury, who lived m the neighborhood,' 1 objected to the ringing of the bell, because it woke the baby; and, after the baby was once awake, nobody could get any sleep.' (Laughter.) (Arthur Harold 'Charteris said that when he Was awakened out of- his sleep he felt the- reverse of what a man ought to feel on Sunday morning. (Renewed laughter.);. ,v ■'" , Mr Bryant submitted that no ground had been made out for an injunction. His Honor: Iri regard to the ringing of the bell on Sunday mornings, I think a strong case has been made oovat — a realsubstantial grievance. ,' Mr Bryant: It would be an outrageous thing if -a: man could stop the church-bell ringing because it woke himself, his wife, or his baby. ' : y His Honor : What is the good of ringing,?,,' • •■■;: • S-■ , xMr Bryant: People say, "There is the bell. I think I'll goto church." (Laughter.) His Honor j Is not ringing the bell on Suriday mqrning and waking up thewhole neighborhood a nuisance ? I think there is a case to reply to. A large number of witriesses. who reside m the rieighborhood were called by, the defence to say that the ringing of the bell was riot a nuisance. Mrs Elizabeth Black, of Arthur street, Caulfield, said th-r» hv}\ did He*, 'rouble her m the least, nor an elderly lady who. lived m the house with her,,' •■ ; -Mr,. Starke :-• Are. you • sure it doesn't worry the elderly lady-3 . » lcness : Yes, I'm sure of it. She's deaf. (Larighter*) ;,; ',;! f, -,"U.-.. ' ; Michael Lyons/ orf'Glenfeifrie road, entered' w'itriesslbok.ririd asked, "Shall .1.1 explain my own, share of. this rase?" Mr Bryant. : ' .. Hold hard . ■ ; - - Has the . rinping- of this church bell ever disturbed you? - „ -•;.-■■.. y'■ v ■ '„.-' Witness : Never^ never, nev iv ; 'aid never . shall.;; • (Laughter.) Exj'.iso riv..' ladies and "gentlemen —^— ' Mr Bryant: You are not on l.'.c stump now. Well, I am not: but it's all the same. It has never disturbed me, morning - nor evening, nor at any other, time ; and any man who is. opposed ' to the" ringing of a bell on Sunday is no man at all, and does not remember hi.° duty to Aliriighty God. ( That's me. That's plain' English. The further hearing was adjourned.