Court Of King's Bench, We...
I BfOrC r. jJU:tiC.LTTLEDALE, Rtoad a Common JufV. Ur.t sUTcurMsov opened the pleadings. This was an action gt by the plaintiff againsst the defendant to recover a compen- asn mpges for the injury and arnnoyancel he sustained from eefcndcnt's carrying on the business' bra blacksmith In hisK ini- iite neighbourhood. The defendant pleaded X not guilty," o:c that point issue was joined. ,Ur- GuRacEY stated the case to the Jury, and the circumistances u b horllyethem The plaintiffand defendant both live in 1h r-squa~ pimlico, the first in No. 15, and the other in 2 .I6. Shortly after the plaintiff had taken possession o' s bnue, the defendant took psssession of the house aidjoining, erected, in the yard of it a forge, where he carried on the bust- eno. a blaksmith. This occasioned great smoke and noise; but 3 wCtqUcnCC of some altorations which had been matde on the eaiaes by the defendant since the commencement of this actieo, r anisace aidsing from the smoke had been abated, though that daing frzom the noise stil resnained. The learned counsel said that za%ould can witnesses to describe the nature of the noise, and he zo dtoubt that when their statectents had been heard, the jury ald sce the propriety ofrertminga verdict for the plaintiff. Dtee or four witnesse were then caUed, who deecribed the noise hine b. One of tbem wa. a servant to the plaintiff. She tbat the noise ofbarnmers and anvils was incessant, from six iL- in the morning tiH seven at night. On her Grc-m-exaina.tion, she udTniited that the smokewas much -7aa than the n.ise, but that the noise, bad as it was, sever woke : v when asleep. Miis Bond, who had been a weekly lodger with emas er, for the last four months, had not intitnated toqher any nntic2n of giving up her lodgings on account of the nuisance :a.pLS3ned of~ r.other of the witnesses was the occupier of the housc No. h e swure that the ioise made in the defendant's shop was d&-nt to shakc the very earth from its foundation; but on his nsz.exam natson adrAitted, that It had not been sufficient to shake rS ladzers from the apartments thcy rented under him. 1lr. SG-A1LLETT contended that even on the plaintiff's showing : was no nuizance of which he had a, right to complain. 1s would, however, prove to them, not only tbat the noise, rdd.bo the plaintiff complained, was not great; but also that did not carry on the business of a blaclksroith. Ris client -s awhitesmith, and therefore did not make any thing like the !e in the uorld that a blacksmith does. It was therefore quite ,zr to expect thit the plaintiffshould run away mith their verdict. derral wimesca swere called, wvho supported Alr. Scarlett's Afr a reply from Mir. GuaicEy, AI-. Justice IIITTLEDALE 2sn3i u?rbc confilcting evidence in the case, and left it to the jury v whether thc nois c omnplained of did or did not amnount to a anrinnee. If they should be of opinion that it did, they would find terdict for the plaintiff'; but if they wecre of opinion that it did not, ~ea they must return a terdict for the defendant. Tbeja ry returned a verdict for the defendant. I OOTRT OF KING'S BENCH. Wva -Tvavr. f. -l. W9ILSON V. RfAvT.71wq