INJUNCTION IS ASKED AGAINST A STONEMASON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18890, 15 October 1929, Page 11

INJUNCTION IS ASKED AGAINST A STONEMASON.

RESIDENTS SAY NOISE IS MUCH INCREASED.

Mr Justice Adams to-day heard an application for an injunction to restrain a company from rdaking noises arising from its business.

Stanley John Thomson, pastrycook and confectioner, Percival Sydney Oliver, steward, and Mrs Sadie Daphne Hickey asked for an injunction restraining J. Tait, Ltd., monumental masons, 52, Cashel Street West, from causing noises by machinery, saws, and plant. Mr Abernethy appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Upham for the company. Plaintiffs alleged that in July last the company installed a new stone-saw, which was used practically without intermission from 5 a.m. or about 6 a.m. to about 10 p.m. on ordinary week days. The noise was very loud and disturbing. The total noise from the stonecutting appliances and saws had increased tremendously. It was unbearable from a residential point of view, and was disturbing to the health, nervs, deep, and rest of, and peaceful and reasonable enjoyment of plaintiffs and adjoining occupiers of their dwellings. The noise was very damaging to the values of plaintiffs’ properties. The defence was a denial that in July the company installed a new’ stone-saw and that it operated the stone-saw practically without intermission from as early as 5 a.m. It admitted that the machinery was operated from 6 a.m. to about 10 pm. The company undertook to discontinue working the machinery during an extension of hours. It denied that plaintiffs' properties were in a district that ever had been a quiet, residential quarter, as more or less noisy trades had been carried on there in buildings intermixed with residences. The company had been sawing granite and marble at 52 Cashel Street for many years.

Mr. Abernethy said that plaintiffs were within fifty yards of the company’s premises. After some new plant was installed, several people complained to the company. Plaintiff’s tenants had threatened to leave unless the noise was abated. An interim injunction was issued on September IS last restraining the company from making the noise, but there had been a wilful disregard of the court’s order. Plaintiffs claimed that the same noise was made now, although it was from 8 am. to 5 pm. in spite of the injunction ordering the company not to cause any nuisance to the plaintiffs by night or day. Mr Upham said that the saws 'had been used for twenty years. Granite had been worked for twenty years, although not continuously. The machinery could not make more noise than it made before July, when, plaintiffs stated, there was no nuisance. The company had been careful not to put more blades into the saw than were in before July. There could not be more noise no\V than there was then.