APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



275 



and the noise of this forge had 

 "been talked of as if Vulcan and 

 his swarthy brothers incessantly 

 plied their thundering hammers 

 within it; but it would surprise 

 the jury, when he showed tliem 

 that all this mighty noise was pro- 

 duced, not by a congregation of 

 giants, but by the nerveless arm 

 of a boy of 14. AVhen the noise 

 and the smoke of this little smithy 

 were made the subject of com- 

 plaint, it was forgotten that there 

 were in the small town of Pres- 

 ton, and within 800 yards of the 

 plaintiff's house, no less than 

 nine steam-engines, and four 

 foundries, which really did send 

 forth volumes of sound and smoke 

 that were formidable and annoy- 

 ing. These, indeed, might with 

 some propriety be declared nui- 

 sances : But it was difficult to 

 describe what a nuisance was in 

 law, or to determine that degree 

 of discomfort which amounted to 

 one. Much would depend upon 

 what people considered as the es- 

 sentials of their comfort or en- 

 joyments. Some thought a line 

 prospect necessary to their enjoy- 

 ments j and according to them it 

 would be a nuisance to cut down 

 a tree in your park that added to 

 the beauty of their landscape, or 

 to build a wall that obstructed in 

 the least their view; some would 

 declare a school a nuisance, be- 

 cause it had noisy boys; others a 

 joiner's shop ; others a steam-en- 

 gine, and so on. lint when people 

 determine to live in towns, tliey 

 must submit to the inconvenience 

 of towns; they are not to expect, 

 amid the noise and smoke and 

 dust of a manufacturing place, 

 the same (juietncss and retirement 

 as m the country j they must not 



hope to enjoy in Manchester or 

 Preston, the same good air as on 

 the site of Lancaster-castle or the 

 top of Skiddaw. The learned 

 counsel called several witnesses 

 for the defendant with the design 

 of showing that the smithy was 

 not considered as a nuisance— 

 that the noise was not distressing 

 — that fewer coals, and coals of a 

 better quality, were burnt in it 

 than in many private houses— 

 that the plaintiff himself did not 

 consider it as a grievance neces- 

 sary to be remedied by law, till 

 the defendant had refused to 

 oblige him by allowing him to fix 

 his joists in defendant's wall — and 

 that the foundries and steam-en- 

 gines of the town were nuisances 

 which, if the plaintiff allowed, 

 took away all ground of complaint 

 against this trifling smithy. It 

 appeared much in favour of the 

 plaintiff that all the witnesses call- 

 ed to disprove the offensive nature 

 of the smoke and noise lived at a 

 greater distance from the smithy 

 than himself, or those whose evi- 

 dence he adduced in his support. 



The learned Judge, in address- 

 ing the jury, and summing up the 

 evidence, explained to them fully 

 the state of the law respecting 

 nuisances. It proceeded upon 

 this principle — that no man in the 

 exercise of his own rights of pro- 

 perty was entitled to endanger the 

 security or diminish the enjoy- 

 ment of his neighbour in the law- 

 ful use of his. A nuisance in law 

 was not what affected the posses- 

 sion and enjoyment of property 

 through the medium of a man's 

 whims, caprices, fancies, or ima- 

 ginary wants, but w hat destroyed 

 or diminished his real, rational, 

 and substantial comforts, such as 



T 3 bringing 



