
    Cheshire,
    June, 1894.
    Davis v. Whitney & a.
    
    The reasonable use of one’s property is not an actionable nuisance, although injurious to another.
    Case, for maintaining a private nuisance. Facts found by a referee. The defendants owned and operated a shoddy mill, situated eighty-six feet from the plaintiff’s dwelling-house, and equipped with machinery indispensable to the business and similar to that used in other shoddy mills. When the wind was in the right direction, lint, dust, and smoke, the latter of a sickening odor, were driven toward the plaintiff’s house, obliging her to close the doors and windows on that side. On two or three occasions she had to absent herself from the house for several weeks, because chronic diseases from which she suffered were made worse by the objectionable materials and odors. The defendants have not intended to injure her, and have tried to construct their plant so that she would not be annoyed. The use they made of their premises was found to be reasonable. The plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $300. Both parties moved for judgment on the report.
    
      Don D. Woodioard and Charles H. Hersey, for the plaintiff.
    
      Batchelder Faulkner, for the defendants.
   Smith, J.

The referee has found that the use made by the defendants of their premises was reasonable. According to the decisions in this state, the defendants are entitled to judgment. Bassett v. Salisbury Co., 43 N. H. 569; Hayes v. Waldron, 44 N. H. 580; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439; Eaton v. Railroad, 51 N. H. 504, 533; Brown v. Collins, 53 N. H. 442; Haley v. Colcord, 59 N. H. 7; Green v. Gilbert, 60 N. H. 144; Rindge v. Sargent, 64 N. H. 294.

Judgment for the defendants.

All concurred.  