ACTION BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 143, 20 June 1939, Page 5

ACTION BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS

BOUNDARY GUM TREE OX ER I ROOF NOISE OF DROPPING NUTS. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. ( Per Tress Association.) AUCKLAND, June 16. An action between neighbours, which Mr. Justice Fair described as raising the question of general interest and of considerable importance was decided by His Honour in a written judgment issued in the Supreme Court. The action concerned a large gum tree growing near a boundary and the right of lhe adjoining owner to have it removed on the grounds that it was causing a nuisance to him through the frequent dropping of leaves and sticks on to his roof. His Honour has decided that plaintiff has no right of action. The proceedings were brought by Francis Cornelius Molloy against William Gwennap Drummond. Plaintiff claimed that the dropping of leaves, small branches and nuts on his roof caused loss of sleep and mental suffering and blocked the spouting and gutters of his house. For this he asked £lOO damages and an injunction to compel defendant to abate the nuisance. “If defendant were to be held liable in this case,” said His Honour, “then neighbours who were disturbed by falling acorns from oak trees, might well make a similar claim, and the right 1o have such trees growing on boundaries, which has from lhe settlement of the Dominion, up io lhe present, been assumed to exist, would disappear.” It appeared that the tree was naturally upon the land and there was no | obligation upon the owner to prevent damage arising from the effect of natural agencies operating upon his j land in its ordinary or natural stage. ! In dosing His Honour said: “It appears therefore, that the user of the| land by defendant cannot be held 10l be excessive or unreasonable and I that therefore plaintiff has not the! right of action. It is unfortunate that he should, upon his view, be obliged | to suffer the annoyance which he 1 does but that appears to be the result I of lhe right which the law confers I on his neighbour to use his land in ordinary and natural way and which this course cannot deny him. Upon; this ruling defendant is entitled to judgment.”