SHUTTING OUT THE LIGHT

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1887, 13 April 1892, Page 6

SHUTTING OUT THE LIGHT

A case of a novel character, but one of very considerable interest, has been before the Supreme Court at Auckland, being the firßt of its kind that haß ever come before the Supreme Court in Auckland, and the second, so far as we can ascertain, that haß ever been on trial in the colony. The action was brought by Henry Edmondes, gum mer chant, Customs street, against Brown, Barrett, and Co., the owners of the adjoining allotment, for an injunction to compel them to remove a wall which shut out the light from certain windows in the plaintiffs store. In a case New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company v. the Wellington Corporation this question &l<; came up, and it was then decided, for tfae first time, that the Act of William IV was in force in New Zealand, and that English cases applied. This point, therefore, was now admitted. The law is that if any person haß the uninterrupted use of light for twenty years, he possesses it is an indefeasable right, but if at any time during the twenty years he closeß up the light for a considerable period, he forfeits that right, or if for twelve months the light is shut out by any other person, he loses that right. A great deal of evidence of a contradictory nature was led for plaintiff and defendant, the former denying that ever they had closed up the windows in such a manner as that they could not, and had not, been used for the admission of light and air, and the latter to show that the windowß of the ground floor had been boarded up and closed in such a manner that they could not be opened for a very considerable period before the defendant erected the wall, the subject of the action, which was erected within six inches of the wall containing the windows, and that two cellar windows had been closed up by debris thrown against them, in reclaiming what was at that time the intake, now the corner of Commerce and Customs streets. Judge Conolly gave a verdict for the plaintiff, and granted the injunction,