fi74 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 



yard, often to be washed over 

 again, and his windows shut when 

 he would choose to have them 

 open. There could be no doubt 

 that the law would consider such 

 a building so placed and so used 

 as a nuisance. Every man has a 

 right to enjoy his own property, 

 but he must use it with a refer- 

 ence to the rights of others. So- 

 ciety could not exist Avithout such 

 a principle. Society is held to- 

 gether in a sort of compromise of 

 mutual restraint and compensa- 

 tion. If a man, in the exercise of 

 his rights of property, builds his 

 house and establishes himself in 

 a particular situation, no other 

 man has a right to destroy his 

 comforts, or to molest his posses- 

 sion, by bringing an offensive 

 trade into his immediate neigh- 

 bourhood. If, on the other hand, 

 the offensive trade is established 

 first, no man has a right to order 

 its reujoval. The only question 

 in law is the priority of establish- 

 ment j and it either abates the 

 nuisance, or permits its continu- 

 ance accorduig to this principle. 

 The law does not consult a man's 

 whims, or caprices, or imaginary 

 wants J but it allows no invasion 

 of his real substantial comforts, 

 nor any exercise of the rights of 

 property, however just in ether 

 respects, that diminishes them. 

 There could be no doubt from the 

 evidence he would produce that 

 the plaintiff was sei'iously aggrieve 

 ed : several of the other inhabit- 

 ants of the street likewise felt the 

 injury as their own. The defend- 

 ant, accustomed to such noises, 

 might not be so sensible of the 

 disturbance they give, as those 

 who reside near the falls of Mia- 

 garu are said not to be at all een- 



sible to their deafening roar, 

 but the plaintiff in the former 

 case, as strangers in the latter, 

 mxist feel the amroyance intoler- 

 able. Till it could be proved that 

 smoke, noise, and dust, in their 

 most offensive degrees,and brought 

 as near as possible to a man's 

 dwelling, were not a nuisance, so 

 long must a smithy situate like 

 the one in question be declared a 

 nuisance, and entitle the plaintiff 

 to a verdict. He asked no dama- 

 ges — he merely asked a verdict, 

 to remove the annoyance of which 

 he so justly complained. 



The learned Counsel then call- 

 ed several witnesses to prove the 

 nuisance, both of the plaintiff's 

 own family and fi-om among his 

 neighbours. His servant deposed, 

 that the clothes hung out to dry 

 in the yard were often so covered 

 with smoke and dust that it was 

 necessary to wash them over again, 

 and that she was freqxiently oblig- 

 ed to shut the windows to exclude 

 such offensive annoyances. She 

 stated farther, that the noise was 

 intoieiable, and often made the 

 floor and windows shake. Several 

 of IMr. Tiiompson's neighbours 

 confirmed this statement, and add- 

 ed their own complaints to his. 



Mr. Williams, for the defend- 

 ant, denied that this smithy 

 could be termed in law a nuisance. 

 He would bring witnesses to prove 

 that they did not consider it as a 

 nxusancej that the noise was by 

 no means what it was represented 

 to be, and that fewer coals, coals 

 of a better quality, and yielding 

 less smoke, were burnt in this 

 smithy than on any kitchen or 

 parlour fire of the neighbourhood. 

 This insignificant smithy had been 

 dignified with the name of forge, 



and 



