High Court Of Justice. (Before MR. JusvTcn W`AX=LsGToN.) This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, the owners and occupiers of De Keyser's Royal Hotel, Victoria-embankment, asking that the defendants might be restrained from causing a nuisance by noise to the plaintiffs, their custotncrs, and ten ants by using a steam pile-driving machline, or anv other noisy machine, in and about the excavation and preparation for building of the foundations of the Piremises situate in Willian-street and N'ew Bridge- etreetr, the property oE Spicer Brothers, between the hours of 7.30 p.m. and 6.30 a.m. The defendant minter was the builder employed by Spicer Brothers to erect the new buiilding. In constructing the foundations of the new building the builders were driving piles into the land. The pile driving consisted of forcing through the soil a steel tube with a point to it by the rapid hanmmering on the top by a weight caused to faU from a height.. The noise was considerable. The pile driving began on Decenmber 8. 1913, and then was conducted in the daytime only. On the niight of January Ia, 1914, the pile hriving went on through the night, with the result that nobody in that side of the hotei which adjoined the building site. could obtain sleep. Considerable inconvenience was also caused at public (linners which w,re being held in the hotel, and somne of t.he after-dinner speakers were unable to nmake t hemselves heard. On January 16 Air. Justice War- rington granted an cx parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the pile-driving machine between tlhe hours of 10 p.m. and 6.30 a.m. Applica- tion was ntow made for the continuance of the in- junction until trial or further order. Mtr. Clauson. X.C., and Mr. WVhinney appeared for the plaintiffs. AIr. HENRY TERumLr., K.C., and AMr. W. !. Hus'r, for the defendants Ppicer Brothers, said that they did not deny that there was considerable noise at intervals. It had not been suggested that they were building in an improper way. Pleople living in a towii had to put up writh building operations. 'The work was not out of the ordinary course, nor %wi-s it bving carried out with vindictiveness or malice. The Court. 'rould not grant an injunction in such a case am I his. He referred to Clark v. Lloyds Bank (i.mited) ( 103 L.T'., 211); Harrison v. Southwark anid Vauxhiall W.ater Companiy (11891] 2 Ch., 409) - Brow,nirng and 1Hes-eltinc v. Harrod's Stores (Limited) tThc Tiinc..August 13, 1902) ;andSt-ump v.Bywater and Sonls (Uimitel) (Build", July 20, 1907). Mr. (i. 11. BLANCO WIIITE. for the builder, Minter, said that thc actual pile driving was being done by sub-contractors with whom h2 was bound to Contract under the ternis of the head contract with t.he buildinig ownrer. The plaintiffs' interests were opposed to the interests of the whole neighbonr- hood. If this woik were stopped at. night the other neighbours, would have to put up with1 the nuisance for doublet timne. Ile referred to Gosnell v. The Aerated Bread Company (Limited) (10 The Times Law IReports, 061). JTRDGM-T. 3IR. JUSTrCEs WARIunGTON, in Iiis judgment, said that any one who lived in the City had to put up with temporary annoyances which might in certain circumstallces be legal nuisances. But to have pile driving during the night seemed to be beyond hlle1 limit to whichi dweoers in the City of London had to subntit. Ont behalf of the defendants reliance bad been placed upon the remarks of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williamiis in Harrison v. Southwark and Vauxlhall Water Company 1' l891 !, 2 Cli., 409). Those remarks went n1o fSurther than this-where a man had to put up a buildinig and the building operations were conducted in a reasonable and proper manner then the Court would not interfere with him. The answer to that was that to conduct these particular opera- tions between 10 p.m. and 6.30 a.m. was not con- elucting the building operations in a reasonable and proper manner. Hlis Lordship would say nothin about building operations generallv. He was satisflee that if this pile driving was done at night it could nlot be said that the building operations were being carried on in a reasonable and proper manner. There must be an injunction restraining the defendants until trial or further order from causing a nuisance by noise to the plaintiffs by conducting the operation of driving piles by the present machine, or any other noisy machine, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6.30 a.m. Solicitors.-Messrs. Biddle, Thorne. Welsford, and Gait; Messrs. Ward, Per"s, and Terry; Mr. T. Blanco White. MIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION. NUISANCE: PILE DRIVING AT NIGHT. DE KEYSE1'S ROYAL HOTEL (LIlMITED) v. SPICOER BROTEERS (LLUITED) AND MINTER.