View report page

161
manufacture and in the burning of bricks, the effect being to
produce noxious fumes, which give rise to nausea, loss of appetite,
headache, and malaise. Some witnesses said they had traced the
smell at the distance of a mile. The quantity of bricks made
averaged 2,000,000 yearly, and the materials used were 500 yards
of dustbin refuse, 500 yards of road scrapings, and 5,000 yards of
clay. Mr. Justice Cave, in delivering judgment in favour of the
plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs had to make out that there was a
nuisance which substantially affected themselves in health, or in
the comfort and enjoyment of their premises. The evidence satisfied
him that so far as the brick burning went there was no nuisance to
health in the sense of causing disease or illness. There remained
the question whether there was a nuisance which affected the
plaintiffs in the comfort and enjoyment of their premises, but he
should first enquire whether there was a nuisance which affected
anybody. Reviewing the general evidence which had been given on
this subject, his Lordship said that, in face of the medical evidence
which had been given for the plaintiffs, he could not believe that the
use of refuse of an organic nature (animal and vegetable), in brickmaking,
did not create a nuisance in the neighbourhood. On the
whole the evidence for the plaintiffs very much preponderated, and
his Lordship was clearly of opinion that there was a nuisance at the
brickfield. Did this nuisance affect Mr. Dunston and Mr. Seely?
After reviewing the evidence as to the distance to which the smell
travelled, and as to what had been perceived at Mr. Seely's house,
his Lordship said he was satisfied that there was a nuisance which
could be perceived at the plaintiffs' premises, and to such an extent
as to render the occupation of their houses uncomfortable and
unenjoyable. His Lordship therefore directed judgment for the
plaintiffs, with an injunction to restrain the burning of bricks in
such a way as to interfere with the comfort of the plaintiffs.
In the Hampstead action, after a few professional and other
witnesses had given their evidence, Mr. Justice Wills, at the
request of the defendants, consented to view the brickfield, which
lies in a hollow near the Hampstead Heath Railway Station, and
adjoins the grounds cf the North-Western (Asylum Board's)